"(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges The reality is the BBC can no longer be viewed as a credible, impartial source on the Gaza conflict. It reported Hamas claims uncritically. Forget the handbags over “terrorists”. That is a terrible place for the organisation to be. There needs to be a serious investigation. 8:48 AM · Oct 18, 2023"
Hodges is half-right. The BBC needs to rely more on OSINT analysts like its own BBC Verify rather than old-fashioned reporters on the ground quoting local sources who at best do not know and at worst are deliberately lying. Trouble is, that all takes time. Tbf to the BBC, mostly it does at least tell us who its sources are, eg Hamas says X and IDF says Y, even if that is the televisual equivalent of a footnote.
Labour lead down to 12 points with More in Common . Fieldwork 14 to 16 October
Lab 42 Con 30 Lib Dem 12 Reform 7 Green 6 SNP 3
I think events in the Middle East are helping the Cons with attention away from domestic issues .
The combined Con and Reform at 37 would seriously worry Labour . I think a few weeks back I’d have backed Labour for both by-elections . Now I think they’re more likely to take Tamworth than Mid-Beds . The split votes there and drop in national lead might be too much of a climb . In Tamworth the Tory candidate might have harmed his hopes with Fxckgate.
This is a swing of 12% since the general election, and Labour need a 10% swing to win a majority with the old boundaries. I think we're heading for a Lab/LD coalition, (which would hopefully introduce proportional representation).
Such a coalition might want to introduce PR, but they'd probably have to have a referendum on it, and I'm not sure the public would back it, whatever the opinion polls say, since it would mean that Labour and Conservative supporters (usually around 70-75% of the electorate) would have to kiss goodbye to ever having majority governments run by their Party again. Also there's the well known tendency to default to the status quo in anoraky questions as we just saw in the Aussie referendum.
(But of course I've been wrong often before - I didn't think we'd vote to leave the EU until a day or two before the vote).
There wouldn't need to be a referendum if PR were in the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos. It is in the LibDem one. The challenge is getting it into the Labour manifesto - even if it is in very small print on page 46.
What always makes me laugh about those who want to change the constitution, is they think that people will vote exactly the same way if it was changed.
I know lots of people who have voted LD; only a few of them are actual supporters of the party. It is currently a catchall vote for both anti Tory and anti Labour depending upon constituency.
UKIP/REF, meanwhile, would do much better under PR, I suspect....
Yes - UKIP/REF and also the Greens would do much better under PR - and so they should.
I'm not in favour of a list system (too much power to the Parties and no choice for the voter and no local accountability.
I'm in favour of a Single Transferable Vote in constituencies of 4 or 5 members where there is competition between members of the same party and also local accountability.
I'm not in favour of it for party advantage. I'm in favour of it because it would be fairer and more democratic and lead to better government. It would also as a bonus avoid all the tactical voting shenanigans.
I agree that it may change which party people vote for, perhaps dramatically. But's that OK. That's good. It would be a more honest vote.
Each constituency would have to have around a quarter of a million voters, unless you expand the number of MPs enormously, which I don't think anyone is in favour of. That would mean somewhere like Somerset having just one constituency instead of 5. It's much easier to introduce STV in small countries like Ireland or New Zealand because the constituencies can still be fairly small without having a huge number of MPs.
Why can't we group current constituencies into 4 or 5 members? What's wrong with 250k voters per constituency? You tend to find in these situations (council elections) the elected representatives divide up the area into their own zones for purposes of local work.
When STV was first invented by Thomas Hare in 1857 practical considerations on time to work out the voting result - size of constituency were real issues. Nowadays computers can work out the result in seconds once the data is input, the internet can be used to put the raw data online so the working out can be easily checked, and telecoms and transport make the size of a single constituency not a problem. I look at Ireland and I am generally impressed at the quality of their politicians (ran rings round ours at brexit) and the satisfaction of voters with the system. It would be a massive change for the better.
Have @Leon@Roger and others who last night rushed to judgment condemning Israel for the Gaza hospital incident apologised yet for rushing to judgment and making false claims?
Now the Americans have confirmed that it was PIJ, the BBC all but confirm it too on Verify on their website, as do security experts elsewhere.
Occam's Razor always said it was an accidental Gazan misfire, shame those who love to race ahead and blame Israel chose to go with the illogical and completely false outcome.
Dunno what the fuss is about, at least a couple of the PB arbiters of morality said even if it was the IDF and 500 Gazans were killed, it was justified cos reasons. Surely that was an end to the matter.
Normally a situation like this is a chance for the PM to be a statesman and get a few brownie points. Okay, a lot of don't knows - well done those people for being honest - but I'm surprised how negative the views are.
I don't think you can win votes with this one. People's views are divided pretty evenly and tightly held so playing to the gallery is harder.
When Tom Cole nominated Jordan, he called him "the honorable" -- which reminded me of an ancient joke, usually told about the Senate: When a senator thinks another senator is a fool, he calls him "the honorable"; when he knows another senator is a fool he calls him the "very honorable and distinguished". For example, a senator, speaking of Rand Paul, might say: "The very honorable and distinguished senator from Kentucky might want to be more careful about who he hires."
Labour lead down to 12 points with More in Common . Fieldwork 14 to 16 October
Lab 42 Con 30 Lib Dem 12 Reform 7 Green 6 SNP 3
I think events in the Middle East are helping the Cons with attention away from domestic issues .
The combined Con and Reform at 37 would seriously worry Labour . I think a few weeks back I’d have backed Labour for both by-elections . Now I think they’re more likely to take Tamworth than Mid-Beds . The split votes there and drop in national lead might be too much of a climb . In Tamworth the Tory candidate might have harmed his hopes with Fxckgate.
This is a swing of 12% since the general election, and Labour need a 10% swing to win a majority with the old boundaries. I think we're heading for a Lab/LD coalition, (which would hopefully introduce proportional representation).
Such a coalition might want to introduce PR, but they'd probably have to have a referendum on it, and I'm not sure the public would back it, whatever the opinion polls say, since it would mean that Labour and Conservative supporters (usually around 70-75% of the electorate) would have to kiss goodbye to ever having majority governments run by their Party again. Also there's the well known tendency to default to the status quo in anoraky questions as we just saw in the Aussie referendum.
(But of course I've been wrong often before - I didn't think we'd vote to leave the EU until a day or two before the vote).
There wouldn't need to be a referendum if PR were in the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos. It is in the LibDem one. The challenge is getting it into the Labour manifesto - even if it is in very small print on page 46.
What always makes me laugh about those who want to change the constitution, is they think that people will vote exactly the same way if it was changed.
I know lots of people who have voted LD; only a few of them are actual supporters of the party. It is currently a catchall vote for both anti Tory and anti Labour depending upon constituency.
UKIP/REF, meanwhile, would do much better under PR, I suspect....
Yes - UKIP/REF and also the Greens would do much better under PR - and so they should.
I'm not in favour of a list system (to much power to the Parties and no choice for the voter and no local accounatablity.
I'm in favour of a Single Transferable Vote in constituencies of 4 or 5 members where there is competition between members of the same party and also local accountability.
I'm not in favour of it for party advantage. I'm in favour of it because it would be fairer and more democratic and lead to better government. It would also as a bonus avoid all the tactical voting shenanigans.
I agree that it may change which party people vote for
Labour lead down to 12 points with More in Common . Fieldwork 14 to 16 October
Lab 42 Con 30 Lib Dem 12 Reform 7 Green 6 SNP 3
I think events in the Middle East are helping the Cons with attention away from domestic issues .
The combined Con and Reform at 37 would seriously worry Labour . I think a few weeks back I’d have backed Labour for both by-elections . Now I think they’re more likely to take Tamworth than Mid-Beds . The split votes there and drop in national lead might be too much of a climb . In Tamworth the Tory candidate might have harmed his hopes with Fxckgate.
This is a swing of 12% since the general election, and Labour need a 10% swing to win a majority with the old boundaries. I think we're heading for a Lab/LD coalition, (which would hopefully introduce proportional representation).
Such a coalition might want to introduce PR, but they'd probably have to have a referendum on it, and I'm not sure the public would back it, whatever the opinion polls say, since it would mean that Labour and Conservative supporters (usually around 70-75% of the electorate) would have to kiss goodbye to ever having majority governments run by their Party again. Also there's the well known tendency to default to the status quo in anoraky questions as we just saw in the Aussie referendum.
(But of course I've been wrong often before - I didn't think we'd vote to leave the EU until a day or two before the vote).
There wouldn't need to be a referendum if PR were in the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos. It is in the LibDem one. The challenge is getting it into the Labour manifesto - even if it is in very small print on page 46.
What always makes me laugh about those who want to change the constitution, is they think that people will vote exactly the same way if it was changed.
I know lots of people who have voted LD; only a few of them are actual supporters of the party. It is currently a catchall vote for both anti Tory and anti Labour depending upon constituency.
UKIP/REF, meanwhile, would do much better under PR, I suspect....
Yes - UKIP/REF and also the Greens would do much better under PR - and so they should.
I'm not in favour of a list system (too much power to the Parties and no choice for the voter and no local accountability.
I'm in favour of a Single Transferable Vote in constituencies of 4 or 5 members where there is competition between members of the same party and also local accountability.
I'm not in favour of it for party advantage. I'm in favour of it because it would be fairer and more democratic and lead to better government. It would also as a bonus avoid all the tactical voting shenanigans.
I agree that it may change which party people vote for, perhaps dramatically. But's that OK. That's good. It would be a more honest vote.
Each constituency would have to have around a quarter of a million voters, unless you expand the number of MPs enormously, which I don't think anyone is in favour of. That would mean somewhere like Somerset having just one constituency instead of 5. It's much easier to introduce STV in small countries like Ireland or New Zealand because the constituencies can still be fairly small without having a huge number of MPs.
That's a fair point. Constituencies of 4 or 5 would work in conurbations but not in rural constituencies. In extremis, in parts of Scotland, there would need to be single member constituencies i.e. AV.
Incidentally Ireland is 27,000 square miles and 160 seats in the Dail, -one seat per 170 square miles on average.
England is 50,000 square miles with 533 seats one seat per 100 square miles on average.
So Ireland on average has larger constituencies. And STV works very well there.
"(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges The reality is the BBC can no longer be viewed as a credible, impartial source on the Gaza conflict. It reported Hamas claims uncritically. Forget the handbags over “terrorists”. That is a terrible place for the organisation to be. There needs to be a serious investigation. 8:48 AM · Oct 18, 2023"
Labour lead down to 12 points with More in Common . Fieldwork 14 to 16 October
Lab 42 Con 30 Lib Dem 12 Reform 7 Green 6 SNP 3
I think events in the Middle East are helping the Cons with attention away from domestic issues .
The combined Con and Reform at 37 would seriously worry Labour . I think a few weeks back I’d have backed Labour for both by-elections . Now I think they’re more likely to take Tamworth than Mid-Beds . The split votes there and drop in national lead might be too much of a climb . In Tamworth the Tory candidate might have harmed his hopes with Fxckgate.
This is a swing of 12% since the general election, and Labour need a 10% swing to win a majority with the old boundaries. I think we're heading for a Lab/LD coalition, (which would hopefully introduce proportional representation).
Such a coalition might want to introduce PR, but they'd probably have to have a referendum on it, and I'm not sure the public would back it, whatever the opinion polls say, since it would mean that Labour and Conservative supporters (usually around 70-75% of the electorate) would have to kiss goodbye to ever having majority governments run by their Party again. Also there's the well known tendency to default to the status quo in anoraky questions as we just saw in the Aussie referendum.
(But of course I've been wrong often before - I didn't think we'd vote to leave the EU until a day or two before the vote).
There wouldn't need to be a referendum if PR were in the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos. It is in the LibDem one. The challenge is getting it into the Labour manifesto - even if it is in very small print on page 46.
What always makes me laugh about those who want to change the constitution, is they think that people will vote exactly the same way if it was changed.
I know lots of people who have voted LD; only a few of them are actual supporters of the party. It is currently a catchall vote for both anti Tory and anti Labour depending upon constituency.
UKIP/REF, meanwhile, would do much better under PR, I suspect....
This is spot on. In the event there was PR, then all the political parties would split to some extent. There would be at least seven different parties with decent representations:
Reclaim / UKIP Traditional Conservatives Cameroon Conservatives Liberally Party Social Democratic Party Traditonal Left Wing Party Greens
I suspect the Liberally Party wouldn't get many more seats than they do now. And I suspect Reclaim and the Greens would be the major beneficiaries.
Oooh agree with that just add others and youre there though I cant see there being a place for the Cameroon conservatives. Theyd either go traditional or Liberally.
On support Id guess
Reclaim / UKIP - 10% Traditional Conservatives 30% Liberally Party 10% Social Democratic Party 30% Traditonal Left Wing Party 7% Greens 8% Others 5%
I suspect the Greens and Reclaim would be more like 15% each, and the traditional Left and Right parties would be slightly lower. I suspect the Liberally Party would be on more like 6-8%.
Labour lead down to 12 points with More in Common . Fieldwork 14 to 16 October
Lab 42 Con 30 Lib Dem 12 Reform 7 Green 6 SNP 3
I think events in the Middle East are helping the Cons with attention away from domestic issues .
The combined Con and Reform at 37 would seriously worry Labour . I think a few weeks back I’d have backed Labour for both by-elections . Now I think they’re more likely to take Tamworth than Mid-Beds . The split votes there and drop in national lead might be too much of a climb . In Tamworth the Tory candidate might have harmed his hopes with Fxckgate.
This is a swing of 12% since the general election, and Labour need a 10% swing to win a majority with the old boundaries. I think we're heading for a Lab/LD coalition, (which would hopefully introduce proportional representation).
Such a coalition might want to introduce PR, but they'd probably have to have a referendum on it, and I'm not sure the public would back it, whatever the opinion polls say, since it would mean that Labour and Conservative supporters (usually around 70-75% of the electorate) would have to kiss goodbye to ever having majority governments run by their Party again. Also there's the well known tendency to default to the status quo in anoraky questions as we just saw in the Aussie referendum.
(But of course I've been wrong often before - I didn't think we'd vote to leave the EU until a day or two before the vote).
There wouldn't need to be a referendum if PR were in the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos. It is in the LibDem one. The challenge is getting it into the Labour manifesto - even if it is in very small print on page 46.
What always makes me laugh about those who want to change the constitution, is they think that people will vote exactly the same way if it was changed.
I know lots of people who have voted LD; only a few of them are actual supporters of the party. It is currently a catchall vote for both anti Tory and anti Labour depending upon constituency.
UKIP/REF, meanwhile, would do much better under PR, I suspect....
This is spot on. In the event there was PR, then all the political parties would split to some extent. There would be at least seven different parties with decent representations:
Reclaim / UKIP Traditional Conservatives Cameroon Conservatives Liberally Party Social Democratic Party Traditonal Left Wing Party Greens
I suspect the Liberally Party wouldn't get many more seats than they do now. And I suspect Reclaim and the Greens would be the major beneficiaries.
Oooh agree with that just add others and youre there though I cant see there being a place for the Cameroon conservatives. Theyd either go traditional or Liberally.
On support Id guess
Reclaim / UKIP - 10% Traditional Conservatives 30% Liberally Party 10% Social Democratic Party 30% Traditonal Left Wing Party 7% Greens 8% Others 5%
I suspect the Greens and Reclaim would be more like 15% each, and the traditional Left and Right parties would be slightly lower. I suspect the Liberally Party would be on more like 6-8%.
I think that is about right.
LDs are currently overachieving their actual base of support.
I reckon we'd have some very, very tight coalitions with small majorities.
Labour lead down to 12 points with More in Common . Fieldwork 14 to 16 October
Lab 42 Con 30 Lib Dem 12 Reform 7 Green 6 SNP 3
I think events in the Middle East are helping the Cons with attention away from domestic issues .
The combined Con and Reform at 37 would seriously worry Labour . I think a few weeks back I’d have backed Labour for both by-elections . Now I think they’re more likely to take Tamworth than Mid-Beds . The split votes there and drop in national lead might be too much of a climb . In Tamworth the Tory candidate might have harmed his hopes with Fxckgate.
This is a swing of 12% since the general election, and Labour need a 10% swing to win a majority with the old boundaries. I think we're heading for a Lab/LD coalition, (which would hopefully introduce proportional representation).
Such a coalition might want to introduce PR, but they'd probably have to have a referendum on it, and I'm not sure the public would back it, whatever the opinion polls say, since it would mean that Labour and Conservative supporters (usually around 70-75% of the electorate) would have to kiss goodbye to ever having majority governments run by their Party again. Also there's the well known tendency to default to the status quo in anoraky questions as we just saw in the Aussie referendum.
(But of course I've been wrong often before - I didn't think we'd vote to leave the EU until a day or two before the vote).
There wouldn't need to be a referendum if PR were in the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos. It is in the LibDem one. The challenge is getting it into the Labour manifesto - even if it is in very small print on page 46.
What always makes me laugh about those who want to change the constitution, is they think that people will vote exactly the same way if it was changed.
I know lots of people who have voted LD; only a few of them are actual supporters of the party. It is currently a catchall vote for both anti Tory and anti Labour depending upon constituency.
UKIP/REF, meanwhile, would do much better under PR, I suspect....
This is spot on. In the event there was PR, then all the political parties would split to some extent. There would be at least seven different parties with decent representations:
Reclaim / UKIP Traditional Conservatives Cameroon Conservatives Liberally Party Social Democratic Party Traditonal Left Wing Party Greens
I suspect the Liberally Party wouldn't get many more seats than they do now. And I suspect Reclaim and the Greens would be the major beneficiaries.
Oooh agree with that just add others and youre there though I cant see there being a place for the Cameroon conservatives. Theyd either go traditional or Liberally.
On support Id guess
Reclaim / UKIP - 10% Traditional Conservatives 30% Liberally Party 10% Social Democratic Party 30% Traditonal Left Wing Party 7% Greens 8% Others 5%
I suspect the Greens and Reclaim would be more like 15% each, and the traditional Left and Right parties would be slightly lower. I suspect the Liberally Party would be on more like 6-8%.
you could well be right. My suspicion is it might take an election or two before people feel comfortable with the more exotic parties.
Labour lead down to 12 points with More in Common . Fieldwork 14 to 16 October
Lab 42 Con 30 Lib Dem 12 Reform 7 Green 6 SNP 3
I think events in the Middle East are helping the Cons with attention away from domestic issues .
The combined Con and Reform at 37 would seriously worry Labour . I think a few weeks back I’d have backed Labour for both by-elections . Now I think they’re more likely to take Tamworth than Mid-Beds . The split votes there and drop in national lead might be too much of a climb . In Tamworth the Tory candidate might have harmed his hopes with Fxckgate.
This is a swing of 12% since the general election, and Labour need a 10% swing to win a majority with the old boundaries. I think we're heading for a Lab/LD coalition, (which would hopefully introduce proportional representation).
Such a coalition might want to introduce PR, but they'd probably have to have a referendum on it, and I'm not sure the public would back it, whatever the opinion polls say, since it would mean that Labour and Conservative supporters (usually around 70-75% of the electorate) would have to kiss goodbye to ever having majority governments run by their Party again. Also there's the well known tendency to default to the status quo in anoraky questions as we just saw in the Aussie referendum.
(But of course I've been wrong often before - I didn't think we'd vote to leave the EU until a day or two before the vote).
There wouldn't need to be a referendum if PR were in the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos. It is in the LibDem one. The challenge is getting it into the Labour manifesto - even if it is in very small print on page 46.
What always makes me laugh about those who want to change the constitution, is they think that people will vote exactly the same way if it was changed.
I know lots of people who have voted LD; only a few of them are actual supporters of the party. It is currently a catchall vote for both anti Tory and anti Labour depending upon constituency.
UKIP/REF, meanwhile, would do much better under PR, I suspect....
Yes - UKIP/REF and also the Greens would do much better under PR - and so they should.
I'm not in favour of a list system (to much power to the Parties and no choice for the voter and no local accounatablity.
I'm in favour of a Single Transferable Vote in constituencies of 4 or 5 members where there is competition between members of the same party and also local accountability.
I'm not in favour of it for party advantage. I'm in favour of it because it would be fairer and more democratic and lead to better government. It would also as a bonus avoid all the tactical voting shenanigans.
I agree that it may change which party people vote for
Labour lead down to 12 points with More in Common . Fieldwork 14 to 16 October
Lab 42 Con 30 Lib Dem 12 Reform 7 Green 6 SNP 3
I think events in the Middle East are helping the Cons with attention away from domestic issues .
The combined Con and Reform at 37 would seriously worry Labour . I think a few weeks back I’d have backed Labour for both by-elections . Now I think they’re more likely to take Tamworth than Mid-Beds . The split votes there and drop in national lead might be too much of a climb . In Tamworth the Tory candidate might have harmed his hopes with Fxckgate.
This is a swing of 12% since the general election, and Labour need a 10% swing to win a majority with the old boundaries. I think we're heading for a Lab/LD coalition, (which would hopefully introduce proportional representation).
Such a coalition might want to introduce PR, but they'd probably have to have a referendum on it, and I'm not sure the public would back it, whatever the opinion polls say, since it would mean that Labour and Conservative supporters (usually around 70-75% of the electorate) would have to kiss goodbye to ever having majority governments run by their Party again. Also there's the well known tendency to default to the status quo in anoraky questions as we just saw in the Aussie referendum.
(But of course I've been wrong often before - I didn't think we'd vote to leave the EU until a day or two before the vote).
There wouldn't need to be a referendum if PR were in the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos. It is in the LibDem one. The challenge is getting it into the Labour manifesto - even if it is in very small print on page 46.
What always makes me laugh about those who want to change the constitution, is they think that people will vote exactly the same way if it was changed.
I know lots of people who have voted LD; only a few of them are actual supporters of the party. It is currently a catchall vote for both anti Tory and anti Labour depending upon constituency.
UKIP/REF, meanwhile, would do much better under PR, I suspect....
Yes - UKIP/REF and also the Greens would do much better under PR - and so they should.
I'm not in favour of a list system (too much power to the Parties and no choice for the voter and no local accountability.
I'm in favour of a Single Transferable Vote in constituencies of 4 or 5 members where there is competition between members of the same party and also local accountability.
I'm not in favour of it for party advantage. I'm in favour of it because it would be fairer and more democratic and lead to better government. It would also as a bonus avoid all the tactical voting shenanigans.
I agree that it may change which party people vote for, perhaps dramatically. But's that OK. That's good. It would be a more honest vote.
I would prefer constituencies kept the same size and just the single MP but chosen by AV.
AV avoids tactical voting which is good. But if you support a particular party, you have to vote for whoever that party puts up. There is no competition between contenders from the same party. It gives the parties too much power over voter choice, in my opinion.
You don't think they could exercise exactly the same control over 3 or 4 candidates as they do over 1? They would still be choosing who those candidates are no matter how many of them you have to choose from.
Yes but then the voter can put them in preference order.
Normally a situation like this is a chance for the PM to be a statesman and get a few brownie points. Okay, a lot of don't knows - well done those people for being honest - but I'm surprised how negative the views are.
Probly needs to fly more flags and project more Stars of David onto buildings.
Taking statements from world leaders condemning the Gaza Hospital strike / mis-strike, and applying them to "the Israeli strike o the hospital in Gaza", when the statements do not identify a cause. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p47rtxtIPOE
Labour lead down to 12 points with More in Common . Fieldwork 14 to 16 October
Lab 42 Con 30 Lib Dem 12 Reform 7 Green 6 SNP 3
I think events in the Middle East are helping the Cons with attention away from domestic issues .
The combined Con and Reform at 37 would seriously worry Labour . I think a few weeks back I’d have backed Labour for both by-elections . Now I think they’re more likely to take Tamworth than Mid-Beds . The split votes there and drop in national lead might be too much of a climb . In Tamworth the Tory candidate might have harmed his hopes with Fxckgate.
This is a swing of 12% since the general election, and Labour need a 10% swing to win a majority with the old boundaries. I think we're heading for a Lab/LD coalition, (which would hopefully introduce proportional representation).
Such a coalition might want to introduce PR, but they'd probably have to have a referendum on it, and I'm not sure the public would back it, whatever the opinion polls say, since it would mean that Labour and Conservative supporters (usually around 70-75% of the electorate) would have to kiss goodbye to ever having majority governments run by their Party again. Also there's the well known tendency to default to the status quo in anoraky questions as we just saw in the Aussie referendum.
(But of course I've been wrong often before - I didn't think we'd vote to leave the EU until a day or two before the vote).
There wouldn't need to be a referendum if PR were in the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos. It is in the LibDem one. The challenge is getting it into the Labour manifesto - even if it is in very small print on page 46.
What always makes me laugh about those who want to change the constitution, is they think that people will vote exactly the same way if it was changed.
I know lots of people who have voted LD; only a few of them are actual supporters of the party. It is currently a catchall vote for both anti Tory and anti Labour depending upon constituency.
UKIP/REF, meanwhile, would do much better under PR, I suspect....
Yes - UKIP/REF and also the Greens would do much better under PR - and so they should.
I'm not in favour of a list system (too much power to the Parties and no choice for the voter and no local accountability.
I'm in favour of a Single Transferable Vote in constituencies of 4 or 5 members where there is competition between members of the same party and also local accountability.
I'm not in favour of it for party advantage. I'm in favour of it because it would be fairer and more democratic and lead to better government. It would also as a bonus avoid all the tactical voting shenanigans.
I agree that it may change which party people vote for, perhaps dramatically. But's that OK. That's good. It would be a more honest vote.
I would prefer constituencies kept the same size and just the single MP but chosen by AV.
AV avoids tactical voting which is good. But if you support a particular party, you have to vote for whoever that party puts up. There is no competition between contenders from the same party. It gives the parties too much power over voter choice, in my opinion.
You don't think they could exercise exactly the same control over 3 or 4 candidates as they do over 1? They would still be choosing who those candidates are no matter how many of them you have to choose from.
You also end up with situations like Ireland where if a constituency has 5 seats / positions, most parties will only have 2 to 3 candidates standing (based on the number of seats they expect to win) to ensure their candidates have a chance of winning..
They generally have more candidates than the number of seats they expect to win. Because it is preference voting, more candidates doesn't decrease the chance of winning.
Genuine question - while any deaths are horrific and I do not wish to minimise them in any way, is there independent verification of the number killed in the Gaza hospital explosion? There may well be but I have not seen it.
Labour lead down to 12 points with More in Common . Fieldwork 14 to 16 October
Lab 42 Con 30 Lib Dem 12 Reform 7 Green 6 SNP 3
I think events in the Middle East are helping the Cons with attention away from domestic issues .
The combined Con and Reform at 37 would seriously worry Labour . I think a few weeks back I’d have backed Labour for both by-elections . Now I think they’re more likely to take Tamworth than Mid-Beds . The split votes there and drop in national lead might be too much of a climb . In Tamworth the Tory candidate might have harmed his hopes with Fxckgate.
This is a swing of 12% since the general election, and Labour need a 10% swing to win a majority with the old boundaries. I think we're heading for a Lab/LD coalition, (which would hopefully introduce proportional representation).
Such a coalition might want to introduce PR, but they'd probably have to have a referendum on it, and I'm not sure the public would back it, whatever the opinion polls say, since it would mean that Labour and Conservative supporters (usually around 70-75% of the electorate) would have to kiss goodbye to ever having majority governments run by their Party again. Also there's the well known tendency to default to the status quo in anoraky questions as we just saw in the Aussie referendum.
(But of course I've been wrong often before - I didn't think we'd vote to leave the EU until a day or two before the vote).
There wouldn't need to be a referendum if PR were in the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos. It is in the LibDem one. The challenge is getting it into the Labour manifesto - even if it is in very small print on page 46.
What always makes me laugh about those who want to change the constitution, is they think that people will vote exactly the same way if it was changed.
I know lots of people who have voted LD; only a few of them are actual supporters of the party. It is currently a catchall vote for both anti Tory and anti Labour depending upon constituency.
UKIP/REF, meanwhile, would do much better under PR, I suspect....
This is spot on. In the event there was PR, then all the political parties would split to some extent. There would be at least seven different parties with decent representations:
Reclaim / UKIP Traditional Conservatives Cameroon Conservatives Liberally Party Social Democratic Party Traditonal Left Wing Party Greens
I suspect the Liberally Party wouldn't get many more seats than they do now. And I suspect Reclaim and the Greens would be the major beneficiaries.
Oooh agree with that just add others and youre there though I cant see there being a place for the Cameroon conservatives. Theyd either go traditional or Liberally.
On support Id guess
Reclaim / UKIP - 10% Traditional Conservatives 30% Liberally Party 10% Social Democratic Party 30% Traditonal Left Wing Party 7% Greens 8% Others 5%
I suspect the Greens and Reclaim would be more like 15% each, and the traditional Left and Right parties would be slightly lower. I suspect the Liberally Party would be on more like 6-8%.
I think that is about right.
LDs are currently overachieving their actual base of support.
I reckon we'd have some very, very tight coalitions with small majorities.
I would only support a change in electoral system if it resulted in more - and more interesting - political betting markets.
Labour lead down to 12 points with More in Common . Fieldwork 14 to 16 October
Lab 42 Con 30 Lib Dem 12 Reform 7 Green 6 SNP 3
I think events in the Middle East are helping the Cons with attention away from domestic issues .
The combined Con and Reform at 37 would seriously worry Labour . I think a few weeks back I’d have backed Labour for both by-elections . Now I think they’re more likely to take Tamworth than Mid-Beds . The split votes there and drop in national lead might be too much of a climb . In Tamworth the Tory candidate might have harmed his hopes with Fxckgate.
This is a swing of 12% since the general election, and Labour need a 10% swing to win a majority with the old boundaries. I think we're heading for a Lab/LD coalition, (which would hopefully introduce proportional representation).
Such a coalition might want to introduce PR, but they'd probably have to have a referendum on it, and I'm not sure the public would back it, whatever the opinion polls say, since it would mean that Labour and Conservative supporters (usually around 70-75% of the electorate) would have to kiss goodbye to ever having majority governments run by their Party again. Also there's the well known tendency to default to the status quo in anoraky questions as we just saw in the Aussie referendum.
(But of course I've been wrong often before - I didn't think we'd vote to leave the EU until a day or two before the vote).
There wouldn't need to be a referendum if PR were in the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos. It is in the LibDem one. The challenge is getting it into the Labour manifesto - even if it is in very small print on page 46.
What always makes me laugh about those who want to change the constitution, is they think that people will vote exactly the same way if it was changed.
I know lots of people who have voted LD; only a few of them are actual supporters of the party. It is currently a catchall vote for both anti Tory and anti Labour depending upon constituency.
UKIP/REF, meanwhile, would do much better under PR, I suspect....
Yes - UKIP/REF and also the Greens would do much better under PR - and so they should.
I'm not in favour of a list system (to much power to the Parties and no choice for the voter and no local accounatablity.
I'm in favour of a Single Transferable Vote in constituencies of 4 or 5 members where there is competition between members of the same party and also local accountability.
I'm not in favour of it for party advantage. I'm in favour of it because it would be fairer and more democratic and lead to better government. It would also as a bonus avoid all the tactical voting shenanigans.
I agree that it may change which party people vote for
Labour lead down to 12 points with More in Common . Fieldwork 14 to 16 October
Lab 42 Con 30 Lib Dem 12 Reform 7 Green 6 SNP 3
I think events in the Middle East are helping the Cons with attention away from domestic issues .
The combined Con and Reform at 37 would seriously worry Labour . I think a few weeks back I’d have backed Labour for both by-elections . Now I think they’re more likely to take Tamworth than Mid-Beds . The split votes there and drop in national lead might be too much of a climb . In Tamworth the Tory candidate might have harmed his hopes with Fxckgate.
This is a swing of 12% since the general election, and Labour need a 10% swing to win a majority with the old boundaries. I think we're heading for a Lab/LD coalition, (which would hopefully introduce proportional representation).
Such a coalition might want to introduce PR, but they'd probably have to have a referendum on it, and I'm not sure the public would back it, whatever the opinion polls say, since it would mean that Labour and Conservative supporters (usually around 70-75% of the electorate) would have to kiss goodbye to ever having majority governments run by their Party again. Also there's the well known tendency to default to the status quo in anoraky questions as we just saw in the Aussie referendum.
(But of course I've been wrong often before - I didn't think we'd vote to leave the EU until a day or two before the vote).
There wouldn't need to be a referendum if PR were in the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos. It is in the LibDem one. The challenge is getting it into the Labour manifesto - even if it is in very small print on page 46.
What always makes me laugh about those who want to change the constitution, is they think that people will vote exactly the same way if it was changed.
I know lots of people who have voted LD; only a few of them are actual supporters of the party. It is currently a catchall vote for both anti Tory and anti Labour depending upon constituency.
UKIP/REF, meanwhile, would do much better under PR, I suspect....
Yes - UKIP/REF and also the Greens would do much better under PR - and so they should.
I'm not in favour of a list system (too much power to the Parties and no choice for the voter and no local accountability.
I'm in favour of a Single Transferable Vote in constituencies of 4 or 5 members where there is competition between members of the same party and also local accountability.
I'm not in favour of it for party advantage. I'm in favour of it because it would be fairer and more democratic and lead to better government. It would also as a bonus avoid all the tactical voting shenanigans.
I agree that it may change which party people vote for, perhaps dramatically. But's that OK. That's good. It would be a more honest vote.
I would prefer constituencies kept the same size and just the single MP but chosen by AV.
AV avoids tactical voting which is good. But if you support a particular party, you have to vote for whoever that party puts up. There is no competition between contenders from the same party. It gives the parties too much power over voter choice, in my opinion.
You don't think they could exercise exactly the same control over 3 or 4 candidates as they do over 1? They would still be choosing who those candidates are no matter how many of them you have to choose from.
Yes but then the voter can put them in preference order.
Labour lead down to 12 points with More in Common . Fieldwork 14 to 16 October
Lab 42 Con 30 Lib Dem 12 Reform 7 Green 6 SNP 3
I think events in the Middle East are helping the Cons with attention away from domestic issues .
The combined Con and Reform at 37 would seriously worry Labour . I think a few weeks back I’d have backed Labour for both by-elections . Now I think they’re more likely to take Tamworth than Mid-Beds . The split votes there and drop in national lead might be too much of a climb . In Tamworth the Tory candidate might have harmed his hopes with Fxckgate.
This is a swing of 12% since the general election, and Labour need a 10% swing to win a majority with the old boundaries. I think we're heading for a Lab/LD coalition, (which would hopefully introduce proportional representation).
Such a coalition might want to introduce PR, but they'd probably have to have a referendum on it, and I'm not sure the public would back it, whatever the opinion polls say, since it would mean that Labour and Conservative supporters (usually around 70-75% of the electorate) would have to kiss goodbye to ever having majority governments run by their Party again. Also there's the well known tendency to default to the status quo in anoraky questions as we just saw in the Aussie referendum.
(But of course I've been wrong often before - I didn't think we'd vote to leave the EU until a day or two before the vote).
There wouldn't need to be a referendum if PR were in the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos. It is in the LibDem one. The challenge is getting it into the Labour manifesto - even if it is in very small print on page 46.
What always makes me laugh about those who want to change the constitution, is they think that people will vote exactly the same way if it was changed.
I know lots of people who have voted LD; only a few of them are actual supporters of the party. It is currently a catchall vote for both anti Tory and anti Labour depending upon constituency.
UKIP/REF, meanwhile, would do much better under PR, I suspect....
Yes - UKIP/REF and also the Greens would do much better under PR - and so they should.
I'm not in favour of a list system (too much power to the Parties and no choice for the voter and no local accountability.
I'm in favour of a Single Transferable Vote in constituencies of 4 or 5 members where there is competition between members of the same party and also local accountability.
I'm not in favour of it for party advantage. I'm in favour of it because it would be fairer and more democratic and lead to better government. It would also as a bonus avoid all the tactical voting shenanigans.
I agree that it may change which party people vote for, perhaps dramatically. But's that OK. That's good. It would be a more honest vote.
I would prefer constituencies kept the same size and just the single MP but chosen by AV.
Option 1 Increase the number of MPs to 900 (average 75,000, can still get them in Westminster Hall)
Option 2 Increase the number of MPs to 2,267. Rationale is as follows
1851
UK popn in 1851 = 27368800
Halve that because only men had the vote
UK Potential voter popn in 1851 = 13,684,400
UK number of MPs in 1852 = 654 seats
Voter/seat ratio = 20,924. Call it 30,000
2023
UK popn in 2023 = 68million (probably)
Ideal number of seats = 68million/30,000 = 2,267.
So we should have 2,267 MPs, each holding an average of 30,000 people.
Representation goes up, party loyalty goes down, MP workload goes down
Labour lead down to 12 points with More in Common . Fieldwork 14 to 16 October
Lab 42 Con 30 Lib Dem 12 Reform 7 Green 6 SNP 3
I think events in the Middle East are helping the Cons with attention away from domestic issues .
The combined Con and Reform at 37 would seriously worry Labour . I think a few weeks back I’d have backed Labour for both by-elections . Now I think they’re more likely to take Tamworth than Mid-Beds . The split votes there and drop in national lead might be too much of a climb . In Tamworth the Tory candidate might have harmed his hopes with Fxckgate.
This is a swing of 12% since the general election, and Labour need a 10% swing to win a majority with the old boundaries. I think we're heading for a Lab/LD coalition, (which would hopefully introduce proportional representation).
Such a coalition might want to introduce PR, but they'd probably have to have a referendum on it, and I'm not sure the public would back it, whatever the opinion polls say, since it would mean that Labour and Conservative supporters (usually around 70-75% of the electorate) would have to kiss goodbye to ever having majority governments run by their Party again. Also there's the well known tendency to default to the status quo in anoraky questions as we just saw in the Aussie referendum.
(But of course I've been wrong often before - I didn't think we'd vote to leave the EU until a day or two before the vote).
There wouldn't need to be a referendum if PR were in the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos. It is in the LibDem one. The challenge is getting it into the Labour manifesto - even if it is in very small print on page 46.
What always makes me laugh about those who want to change the constitution, is they think that people will vote exactly the same way if it was changed.
I know lots of people who have voted LD; only a few of them are actual supporters of the party. It is currently a catchall vote for both anti Tory and anti Labour depending upon constituency.
UKIP/REF, meanwhile, would do much better under PR, I suspect....
This is spot on. In the event there was PR, then all the political parties would split to some extent. There would be at least seven different parties with decent representations:
Reclaim / UKIP Traditional Conservatives Cameroon Conservatives Liberally Party Social Democratic Party Traditonal Left Wing Party Greens
I suspect the Liberally Party wouldn't get many more seats than they do now. And I suspect Reclaim and the Greens would be the major beneficiaries.
Oooh agree with that just add others and youre there though I cant see there being a place for the Cameroon conservatives. Theyd either go traditional or Liberally.
On support Id guess
Reclaim / UKIP - 10% Traditional Conservatives 30% Liberally Party 10% Social Democratic Party 30% Traditonal Left Wing Party 7% Greens 8% Others 5%
I suspect the Greens and Reclaim would be more like 15% each, and the traditional Left and Right parties would be slightly lower. I suspect the Liberally Party would be on more like 6-8%.
you could well be right. My suspicion is it might take an election or two before people feel comfortable with the more exotic parties.
It may take longer. The Overton window is in fact quite narrow in a mature secular democracy, if you regard the Overton window not as the arena of competing wish lists and self-contradicting unicorns, but the arena of only the actual, desirable and possible.
The character of smaller parties is that they compete in various forms of left and right populist sloganeering beyond rational implementation. As the populist right in Italy is discovering just now.
Biden warns Israel not to repeat mistakes of US response after 9/11 https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4262626-biden-warns-israel-mistakes-after-9-11/ ..“Since this terrorist attack took place, we’ve seen it described as Israel’s 9/11. But for a nation the size of Israel, it was like 15 9/11s,” Biden said. “The scale may be different, but I’m sure those horrors have tapped into some kind of primal feeling in Israel just like it did in the United States. Shock, pain, rage. An all-consuming rage.” “You can’t look at what has happened here … and not scream out for justice,” Biden continued. “Justice must be done. But I caution this: While you feel that rage, don’t be consumed by it. After 9/11 we were enraged in the United States. While we sought justice and got justice, we also made mistakes.”..
Labour lead down to 12 points with More in Common . Fieldwork 14 to 16 October
Lab 42 Con 30 Lib Dem 12 Reform 7 Green 6 SNP 3
I think events in the Middle East are helping the Cons with attention away from domestic issues .
The combined Con and Reform at 37 would seriously worry Labour . I think a few weeks back I’d have backed Labour for both by-elections . Now I think they’re more likely to take Tamworth than Mid-Beds . The split votes there and drop in national lead might be too much of a climb . In Tamworth the Tory candidate might have harmed his hopes with Fxckgate.
This is a swing of 12% since the general election, and Labour need a 10% swing to win a majority with the old boundaries. I think we're heading for a Lab/LD coalition, (which would hopefully introduce proportional representation).
Such a coalition might want to introduce PR, but they'd probably have to have a referendum on it, and I'm not sure the public would back it, whatever the opinion polls say, since it would mean that Labour and Conservative supporters (usually around 70-75% of the electorate) would have to kiss goodbye to ever having majority governments run by their Party again. Also there's the well known tendency to default to the status quo in anoraky questions as we just saw in the Aussie referendum.
(But of course I've been wrong often before - I didn't think we'd vote to leave the EU until a day or two before the vote).
There wouldn't need to be a referendum if PR were in the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos. It is in the LibDem one. The challenge is getting it into the Labour manifesto - even if it is in very small print on page 46.
What always makes me laugh about those who want to change the constitution, is they think that people will vote exactly the same way if it was changed.
I know lots of people who have voted LD; only a few of them are actual supporters of the party. It is currently a catchall vote for both anti Tory and anti Labour depending upon constituency.
UKIP/REF, meanwhile, would do much better under PR, I suspect....
Yes - UKIP/REF and also the Greens would do much better under PR - and so they should.
I'm not in favour of a list system (too much power to the Parties and no choice for the voter and no local accountability.
I'm in favour of a Single Transferable Vote in constituencies of 4 or 5 members where there is competition between members of the same party and also local accountability.
I'm not in favour of it for party advantage. I'm in favour of it because it would be fairer and more democratic and lead to better government. It would also as a bonus avoid all the tactical voting shenanigans.
I agree that it may change which party people vote for, perhaps dramatically. But's that OK. That's good. It would be a more honest vote.
I would prefer constituencies kept the same size and just the single MP but chosen by AV.
Option 1 Increase the number of MPs to 900 (average 75,000, can still get them Westminster Hall)
Option 2 Increase the number of MPs to 2,267. Rationale is as follows
1851
UK popn in 1851 = 27368800
Halve that because only men had the vote
UK Potential voter popn in 1851 = 13,684,400
UK number of MPs in 1852 = 654 seats
Voter/seat ratio = 20,924. Call it 30,000
2023
UK popn in 2023 = 68million (probably)
Ideal number of seats = 68million/30,000 = 2,267.
So we should have 2,267 MPs, each holding an average of 30,000 people.
Representation goes up, party loyalty goes down, MP workload goes down
Debates would be very long if even a tiny percentage of MPs spoke for 5 minutes.
Labour lead down to 12 points with More in Common . Fieldwork 14 to 16 October
Lab 42 Con 30 Lib Dem 12 Reform 7 Green 6 SNP 3
I think events in the Middle East are helping the Cons with attention away from domestic issues .
The combined Con and Reform at 37 would seriously worry Labour . I think a few weeks back I’d have backed Labour for both by-elections . Now I think they’re more likely to take Tamworth than Mid-Beds . The split votes there and drop in national lead might be too much of a climb . In Tamworth the Tory candidate might have harmed his hopes with Fxckgate.
This is a swing of 12% since the general election, and Labour need a 10% swing to win a majority with the old boundaries. I think we're heading for a Lab/LD coalition, (which would hopefully introduce proportional representation).
Such a coalition might want to introduce PR, but they'd probably have to have a referendum on it, and I'm not sure the public would back it, whatever the opinion polls say, since it would mean that Labour and Conservative supporters (usually around 70-75% of the electorate) would have to kiss goodbye to ever having majority governments run by their Party again. Also there's the well known tendency to default to the status quo in anoraky questions as we just saw in the Aussie referendum.
(But of course I've been wrong often before - I didn't think we'd vote to leave the EU until a day or two before the vote).
There wouldn't need to be a referendum if PR were in the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos. It is in the LibDem one. The challenge is getting it into the Labour manifesto - even if it is in very small print on page 46.
What always makes me laugh about those who want to change the constitution, is they think that people will vote exactly the same way if it was changed.
I know lots of people who have voted LD; only a few of them are actual supporters of the party. It is currently a catchall vote for both anti Tory and anti Labour depending upon constituency.
UKIP/REF, meanwhile, would do much better under PR, I suspect....
This is spot on. In the event there was PR, then all the political parties would split to some extent. There would be at least seven different parties with decent representations:
Reclaim / UKIP Traditional Conservatives Cameroon Conservatives Liberally Party Social Democratic Party Traditonal Left Wing Party Greens
I suspect the Liberally Party wouldn't get many more seats than they do now. And I suspect Reclaim and the Greens would be the major beneficiaries.
Oooh agree with that just add others and youre there though I cant see there being a place for the Cameroon conservatives. Theyd either go traditional or Liberally.
On support Id guess
Reclaim / UKIP - 10% Traditional Conservatives 30% Liberally Party 10% Social Democratic Party 30% Traditonal Left Wing Party 7% Greens 8% Others 5%
I suspect the Greens and Reclaim would be more like 15% each, and the traditional Left and Right parties would be slightly lower. I suspect the Liberally Party would be on more like 6-8%.
I think that is about right.
LDs are currently overachieving their actual base of support.
I reckon we'd have some very, very tight coalitions with small majorities.
I would only support a change in electoral system if it resulted in more - and more interesting - political betting markets.
Though philosophically I support AV, I oppose any change which does away with then unique nature of general election night from 10pm onwards.
Genuine question - while any deaths are horrific and I do not wish to minimise them in any way, is there independent verification of the number killed in the Gaza hospital explosion? There may well be but I have not seen it.
None that I have seen.
The description of what happened, and the scene in the pictures that have been published do not match in anyway.
In the original report, a direct hit destroyed a hospital full of people in a huge explosion.
In the pictures, that are claimed to be of the scene, an explosion in a car park destroyed some cars, while leaving trees and buildings intact.
NYT live blog - now up to 8 non-Jordan votes from Republicans.
SO Coach Jockstrap ain't getting elected Speaker this round . . . unless there are vote switches before roll call concludes, which IMHO ain't likely.
Do you think if he's further short than he was yesterday that his bid is over? Seems hard if he's going in the wrong direction.
Yes and no. He may keep running, but there are still more reserve votes against him out there - for example, McCarthy AND Scalise are gonna for FOR Coach Jockstrap this round. And they are NOT alone.
Note that JJ himself has said he supports giving McHenry enough authority so House can resume semi-normal operations. Which means I think he will keep on campaigning, though perhaps in a less robust (read brownshirt) manner.
NYT live blog - Doug LaMalfa of California is Jordan’s first pick-up. He’s a big McCarthy ally, but previously announced he’d back Jordan on this ballot.
SSI - As he'd previously announced he was gonna do; he was the ONLY House GOPer to make such a pledge.
"(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges The reality is the BBC can no longer be viewed as a credible, impartial source on the Gaza conflict. It reported Hamas claims uncritically. Forget the handbags over “terrorists”. That is a terrible place for the organisation to be. There needs to be a serious investigation. 8:48 AM · Oct 18, 2023"
This is a colossal exaggeration about an imperfect BBC which, WRT news and current affairs is, on the whole a giant force for good in the world.
It is possible to agree with many of the criticisms and also think this is true.
I agree with that. Despite its shortcomings, and occasional cock-ups, I retain more faith in the BBC seeking to provide objectivity than either, say, Hamas or the IDF, both of whom deal mainly in propaganda.
Looks more like my neighbours driveway, which they are currently digging it up to replace some bricks.
I’m unclear what the debate is here. The atom bomb over Hiroshima didn’t produce a crater, but it still killed a lot of people! Do any of these commentators or us here have relevant forensics experience as to what different explosions would produce?
The issue is that we were told early on that Israel had dropped bombs there. If Israel had dropped one of their bombs then there would have been a massive crater. We were also told the hospital had collapsed and yet it still seems to be standing. Lies from the very start. Just like Hamas lied when they said they don't attack civilians. Why should anyone trust a single word Hamas says?
I don’t think we should trust what Hamas say. I wouldn’t trust the IDF much either, who have told plenty of lies in the past. We should avoid rushing to conclusions.
I am also quite sceptical of armchair “experts” on social media who have suddenly become so knowledgeable on explosion forensics, having recently been experts on drone warfare in Ukraine, or epidemiology during COVID-19…
That's the point - you don't need to be a forensic explosives expert to see that there is no huge crater, the building is still standing and that there was a larger fire at Luton airport last week. Yet, despite this, many people just repeated the lies that they had been told unquestioningly.
I think we need to know - for one thing - how many people were at the hospital.
Media on the spot eg BBC correspondents have been reporting 50-100 people in single houses.
How many thousand were present at the hospital? It is an 80 bed hospital founded by CMS in 1882, and run by the Episcopal Church of Jerusalem and the Middle East. We will get accurate reports.
0.5-1kt - a small *nuke* of yield in the heart of a busy city. 218 dead.
The scene in picture is more like the aftermath of a car bombing in NI.
I'm with Rishi Sunak on that one: 'Wait for evidence rather than react prematurely'.
500 is imo credible. So is 200. It was more like a bomb hitting a crowded open air market than an air raid shelter. We'll get accurate reports, I think, on this one. Quite possibly there are EXPAT staff from the UK or the USA working there.
This from the BBC:
"Canon Richard Sewell, the dean of St George's College in Jerusalem, told the BBC that about 1,000 displaced people were sheltering in the courtyard when it was hit, and about 600 patients and staff were inside the building." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67144061
Biden warns Israel not to repeat mistakes of US response after 9/11 https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4262626-biden-warns-israel-mistakes-after-9-11/ ..“Since this terrorist attack took place, we’ve seen it described as Israel’s 9/11. But for a nation the size of Israel, it was like 15 9/11s,” Biden said. “The scale may be different, but I’m sure those horrors have tapped into some kind of primal feeling in Israel just like it did in the United States. Shock, pain, rage. An all-consuming rage.” “You can’t look at what has happened here … and not scream out for justice,” Biden continued. “Justice must be done. But I caution this: While you feel that rage, don’t be consumed by it. After 9/11 we were enraged in the United States. While we sought justice and got justice, we also made mistakes.”..
‘We also made mistakes’ is a bit of a gloss. Iraq had as much to do with justice as the trial and execution of Timothy Evans.
NYT live blog - Mariannette Miller-Meeks of Iowa voted for Jordan yesterday. She is a vulnerable Republican and today she flips, voting for Kay Granger.
Labour lead down to 12 points with More in Common . Fieldwork 14 to 16 October
Lab 42 Con 30 Lib Dem 12 Reform 7 Green 6 SNP 3
I think events in the Middle East are helping the Cons with attention away from domestic issues .
The combined Con and Reform at 37 would seriously worry Labour . I think a few weeks back I’d have backed Labour for both by-elections . Now I think they’re more likely to take Tamworth than Mid-Beds . The split votes there and drop in national lead might be too much of a climb . In Tamworth the Tory candidate might have harmed his hopes with Fxckgate.
This is a swing of 12% since the general election, and Labour need a 10% swing to win a majority with the old boundaries. I think we're heading for a Lab/LD coalition, (which would hopefully introduce proportional representation).
Such a coalition might want to introduce PR, but they'd probably have to have a referendum on it, and I'm not sure the public would back it, whatever the opinion polls say, since it would mean that Labour and Conservative supporters (usually around 70-75% of the electorate) would have to kiss goodbye to ever having majority governments run by their Party again. Also there's the well known tendency to default to the status quo in anoraky questions as we just saw in the Aussie referendum.
(But of course I've been wrong often before - I didn't think we'd vote to leave the EU until a day or two before the vote).
There wouldn't need to be a referendum if PR were in the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos. It is in the LibDem one. The challenge is getting it into the Labour manifesto - even if it is in very small print on page 46.
What always makes me laugh about those who want to change the constitution, is they think that people will vote exactly the same way if it was changed.
I know lots of people who have voted LD; only a few of them are actual supporters of the party. It is currently a catchall vote for both anti Tory and anti Labour depending upon constituency.
UKIP/REF, meanwhile, would do much better under PR, I suspect....
Yes - UKIP/REF and also the Greens would do much better under PR - and so they should.
I'm not in favour of a list system (too much power to the Parties and no choice for the voter and no local accountability.
I'm in favour of a Single Transferable Vote in constituencies of 4 or 5 members where there is competition between members of the same party and also local accountability.
I'm not in favour of it for party advantage. I'm in favour of it because it would be fairer and more democratic and lead to better government. It would also as a bonus avoid all the tactical voting shenanigans.
I agree that it may change which party people vote for, perhaps dramatically. But's that OK. That's good. It would be a more honest vote.
I would prefer constituencies kept the same size and just the single MP but chosen by AV.
Option 1 Increase the number of MPs to 900 (average 75,000, can still get them in Westminster Hall)
Option 2 Increase the number of MPs to 2,267. Rationale is as follows
1851
UK popn in 1851 = 27368800
Halve that because only men had the vote
UK Potential voter popn in 1851 = 13,684,400
UK number of MPs in 1852 = 654 seats
Voter/seat ratio = 20,924. Call it 30,000
2023
UK popn in 2023 = 68million (probably)
Ideal number of seats = 68million/30,000 = 2,267.
So we should have 2,267 MPs, each holding an average of 30,000 people.
Representation goes up, party loyalty goes down, MP workload goes down
Not really we as a nation are hugely centralised . UK Parliament at 501 seems right to me, with a large transfer of powers to local government. Put power closer to the voters.
Thing is, and they may all be 17th generation Bedfordonians for all I know, but it appears that the BBC Gaza correspondents, in Gaza, are locals. I haven't seen the sainted Lyse report actually from Gaza. Because she's no fool. Which means that there must be some degree of "pressure" wrt what to report.
Genuine question - while any deaths are horrific and I do not wish to minimise them in any way, is there independent verification of the number killed in the Gaza hospital explosion? There may well be but I have not seen it.
I think the movement in betting toward the Tories reflects the increased visibility Truss and her team have had lately.
Really - how does Ms "let's bankrupt the UK" Truss generate Tory party votes given that she isn't in charge of anything...
You underestimate the Trussquake that is imminent. The promise of the return of the Queen Over the Water will have the undecided and the decided running to put their crosses in the Blues' box. It coming home.
Thing is, and they may all be 17th generation Bedfordonians for all I know, but it appears that the BBC Gaza correspondents, in Gaza, are locals. I haven't seen the sainted Lyse report actually from Gaza. Because she's no fool. Which means that there must be some degree of "pressure" wrt what to report.
It isn't possible to get in or out of Gaza. So that limits the journo traffic.
Anyone reporting from Gaza is in a dangerous cage. It is remarkable that the BBC have an office there at all. Most don't. SFAICS the BBC have said nothing about this (for obvious reasons) but it is apparent that the BBC guy there is self censoring for reasons which will be connected to staying alive. I hear everything he says in that light.
I'm off to Perthshire on Monday. Nowhere better in Europe* for Autumn colours. I know this is far from the biggest concern, but I'm hoping the storm doesn't prematurely remove the goldens and browns from the trees.
*I have travelled nowhere near enough to know whether this is true, but it seems feasible.
It is fabulous. The hillside to the north and east of Perth is excellent already and will get better but the trees and walks around Dunkeld are hard to beat. Do the river walk there. So many different mature trees from all around the world.
This storm is looking ominous though. The woods near me haven’t recovered from the storm 3? years ago. In fact they won’t in my lifetime.
Yes, we're staying just outside Dunkeld. We did the same trip last year. I loved it. I would describe the Tay there as 'muscular'; quite an awesome volume of water surging past. I'm hoping to do Ben Vrackie, if the kids are up to it; and also possibly the Falls of Bruar. We're also (following last year's recommendation by, I think, @Luckyguy1983 ) going to do the Enchanted Forest again. Hopefully schedule in a castle of some sort. But basically just spend a few days together as a family. The kids are absolutely running on empty leading up to half term - haven't needed a holiday as much as this in a long time!
Blair Castle is great if you want to see a massive baronial (Ducal in this case) pile. Should fit in with Bruar quite well. So glad you enjoyed last year's visit - sure this one will be even better.
Thanks - we did Blair Castle last year; loved it. Not least because I realised when I arrived that I had been there before, when I was, ooh, four, and had indeed camped in the campsite next door. There's something magical about a memory from that far back that you had forgotten even having. Also something magical about a lone piper playing outside a Baronial (/ducal) pile at 3pm with a backdrop of thousands of acres of empty highland landscape - which is also probably another only half-remembered childhood memory. So we may well do Blair Castle again!
Ah OK. If you're driving up to Perthshire from Edinburgh you could try coming the Stirling way and doing Stirling Castle? That's a great one - very similar to Edinburgh Castle in style and topography but a lot more interesting inside.
We may do that. How long do you think Stirling Castle needs to make it worth doing?
Doable in a couple of hours in total (doing the castle, wandering the town and getting a coffee? Others might have a different opinion.
Even the BBC Verify is still saying that the explosion is: " feared to have killed hundreds of people." What is the evidence for this? They are still quoting Hamas as saying this was done by the Israelis. They are not commenting on the recorded message that the Israelis produced this morning.
The consequences of the BBC reporting things in this highly partial way can be profound. Who can doubt it contributed to the decision of Arab leaders not to meet Biden?
I fully appreciate that this is a difficult situation. I accept getting clear evidence is difficult. But the BBC needs to be much more careful about "reporting" such dangerously inflammatory material without any form of verification, even if it puts them a few minutes behind some of the more adventurous sites. This has not been their finest hour.
I'm off to Perthshire on Monday. Nowhere better in Europe* for Autumn colours. I know this is far from the biggest concern, but I'm hoping the storm doesn't prematurely remove the goldens and browns from the trees.
*I have travelled nowhere near enough to know whether this is true, but it seems feasible.
It is fabulous. The hillside to the north and east of Perth is excellent already and will get better but the trees and walks around Dunkeld are hard to beat. Do the river walk there. So many different mature trees from all around the world.
This storm is looking ominous though. The woods near me haven’t recovered from the storm 3? years ago. In fact they won’t in my lifetime.
Yes, we're staying just outside Dunkeld. We did the same trip last year. I loved it. I would describe the Tay there as 'muscular'; quite an awesome volume of water surging past. I'm hoping to do Ben Vrackie, if the kids are up to it; and also possibly the Falls of Bruar. We're also (following last year's recommendation by, I think, @Luckyguy1983 ) going to do the Enchanted Forest again. Hopefully schedule in a castle of some sort. But basically just spend a few days together as a family. The kids are absolutely running on empty leading up to half term - haven't needed a holiday as much as this in a long time!
Blair Castle is great if you want to see a massive baronial (Ducal in this case) pile. Should fit in with Bruar quite well. So glad you enjoyed last year's visit - sure this one will be even better.
Thanks - we did Blair Castle last year; loved it. Not least because I realised when I arrived that I had been there before, when I was, ooh, four, and had indeed camped in the campsite next door. There's something magical about a memory from that far back that you had forgotten even having. Also something magical about a lone piper playing outside a Baronial (/ducal) pile at 3pm with a backdrop of thousands of acres of empty highland landscape - which is also probably another only half-remembered childhood memory. So we may well do Blair Castle again!
looking at the Perth/Angus/Aberdeen area weather forecast, I would invest in lifejackets...
Happily we're not going until Monday! Just hoping that there's no serious after effects.
Dunkeld House Hotel? I've had a couple of good Xmas nights out there.
Nothing quite so fine - Erigmore holiday park. But thank you - I came across that site yesterday and have spent a happy couple of hours giddily exploring the possibilities.
Labour lead down to 12 points with More in Common . Fieldwork 14 to 16 October
Lab 42 Con 30 Lib Dem 12 Reform 7 Green 6 SNP 3
I think events in the Middle East are helping the Cons with attention away from domestic issues .
The combined Con and Reform at 37 would seriously worry Labour . I think a few weeks back I’d have backed Labour for both by-elections . Now I think they’re more likely to take Tamworth than Mid-Beds . The split votes there and drop in national lead might be too much of a climb . In Tamworth the Tory candidate might have harmed his hopes with Fxckgate.
This is a swing of 12% since the general election, and Labour need a 10% swing to win a majority with the old boundaries. I think we're heading for a Lab/LD coalition, (which would hopefully introduce proportional representation).
Such a coalition might want to introduce PR, but they'd probably have to have a referendum on it, and I'm not sure the public would back it, whatever the opinion polls say, since it would mean that Labour and Conservative supporters (usually around 70-75% of the electorate) would have to kiss goodbye to ever having majority governments run by their Party again. Also there's the well known tendency to default to the status quo in anoraky questions as we just saw in the Aussie referendum.
(But of course I've been wrong often before - I didn't think we'd vote to leave the EU until a day or two before the vote).
There wouldn't need to be a referendum if PR were in the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos. It is in the LibDem one. The challenge is getting it into the Labour manifesto - even if it is in very small print on page 46.
What always makes me laugh about those who want to change the constitution, is they think that people will vote exactly the same way if it was changed.
I know lots of people who have voted LD; only a few of them are actual supporters of the party. It is currently a catchall vote for both anti Tory and anti Labour depending upon constituency.
UKIP/REF, meanwhile, would do much better under PR, I suspect....
This is spot on. In the event there was PR, then all the political parties would split to some extent. There would be at least seven different parties with decent representations:
Reclaim / UKIP Traditional Conservatives Cameroon Conservatives Liberally Party Social Democratic Party Traditonal Left Wing Party Greens
I suspect the Liberally Party wouldn't get many more seats than they do now. And I suspect Reclaim and the Greens would be the major beneficiaries.
Oooh agree with that just add others and youre there though I cant see there being a place for the Cameroon conservatives. Theyd either go traditional or Liberally.
On support Id guess
Reclaim / UKIP - 10% Traditional Conservatives 30% Liberally Party 10% Social Democratic Party 30% Traditonal Left Wing Party 7% Greens 8% Others 5%
I suspect the Greens and Reclaim would be more like 15% each, and the traditional Left and Right parties would be slightly lower. I suspect the Liberally Party would be on more like 6-8%.
I think that is about right.
LDs are currently overachieving their actual base of support.
I reckon we'd have some very, very tight coalitions with small majorities.
If it was true PR, then that 6%-8% for the Libdems would result in 40 to 50 seats, many more than now, so how are they over achieving their base support now with only 14 seats?
Labour lead down to 12 points with More in Common . Fieldwork 14 to 16 October
Lab 42 Con 30 Lib Dem 12 Reform 7 Green 6 SNP 3
I think events in the Middle East are helping the Cons with attention away from domestic issues .
The combined Con and Reform at 37 would seriously worry Labour . I think a few weeks back I’d have backed Labour for both by-elections . Now I think they’re more likely to take Tamworth than Mid-Beds . The split votes there and drop in national lead might be too much of a climb . In Tamworth the Tory candidate might have harmed his hopes with Fxckgate.
This is a swing of 12% since the general election, and Labour need a 10% swing to win a majority with the old boundaries. I think we're heading for a Lab/LD coalition, (which would hopefully introduce proportional representation).
Such a coalition might want to introduce PR, but they'd probably have to have a referendum on it, and I'm not sure the public would back it, whatever the opinion polls say, since it would mean that Labour and Conservative supporters (usually around 70-75% of the electorate) would have to kiss goodbye to ever having majority governments run by their Party again. Also there's the well known tendency to default to the status quo in anoraky questions as we just saw in the Aussie referendum.
(But of course I've been wrong often before - I didn't think we'd vote to leave the EU until a day or two before the vote).
There wouldn't need to be a referendum if PR were in the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos. It is in the LibDem one. The challenge is getting it into the Labour manifesto - even if it is in very small print on page 46.
What always makes me laugh about those who want to change the constitution, is they think that people will vote exactly the same way if it was changed.
I know lots of people who have voted LD; only a few of them are actual supporters of the party. It is currently a catchall vote for both anti Tory and anti Labour depending upon constituency.
UKIP/REF, meanwhile, would do much better under PR, I suspect....
Yes - UKIP/REF and also the Greens would do much better under PR - and so they should.
I'm not in favour of a list system (too much power to the Parties and no choice for the voter and no local accountability.
I'm in favour of a Single Transferable Vote in constituencies of 4 or 5 members where there is competition between members of the same party and also local accountability.
I'm not in favour of it for party advantage. I'm in favour of it because it would be fairer and more democratic and lead to better government. It would also as a bonus avoid all the tactical voting shenanigans.
I agree that it may change which party people vote for, perhaps dramatically. But's that OK. That's good. It would be a more honest vote.
I would prefer constituencies kept the same size and just the single MP but chosen by AV.
AV avoids tactical voting which is good. But if you support a particular party, you have to vote for whoever that party puts up. There is no competition between contenders from the same party. It gives the parties too much power over voter choice, in my opinion.
You don't think they could exercise exactly the same control over 3 or 4 candidates as they do over 1? They would still be choosing who those candidates are no matter how many of them you have to choose from.
But each elector would have only one vote. So the candidates from each party group are also competing against one another.
Imagine you had a constituency where the Conservative candidates were Rory Stewart, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Dominic Cummings and Suella Braverman. You have to rank them. Which one would get your vote first?
There is always the risk that a voter, appalled by the attitude and competence of a Conservative candidate, might prefer to vote for a Socialist or Lib Dem candidate ahead o fthe appalling Conservative. So The Party would need to have a good range of candidates to stop its voters rushing off into the arms of Farage,or whatever.
Rigid party control wth identikit candidates leads only to a loss of support.
The people who spent the last many years demanding censorship of "misinformation" and "disinformation" have spent 24 hours spreading horrific and damaging unverified allegations pushed by a terrorist organisation as the truth on their gigantic platforms."
Labour lead down to 12 points with More in Common . Fieldwork 14 to 16 October
Lab 42 Con 30 Lib Dem 12 Reform 7 Green 6 SNP 3
I think events in the Middle East are helping the Cons with attention away from domestic issues .
The combined Con and Reform at 37 would seriously worry Labour . I think a few weeks back I’d have backed Labour for both by-elections . Now I think they’re more likely to take Tamworth than Mid-Beds . The split votes there and drop in national lead might be too much of a climb . In Tamworth the Tory candidate might have harmed his hopes with Fxckgate.
This is a swing of 12% since the general election, and Labour need a 10% swing to win a majority with the old boundaries. I think we're heading for a Lab/LD coalition, (which would hopefully introduce proportional representation).
Such a coalition might want to introduce PR, but they'd probably have to have a referendum on it, and I'm not sure the public would back it, whatever the opinion polls say, since it would mean that Labour and Conservative supporters (usually around 70-75% of the electorate) would have to kiss goodbye to ever having majority governments run by their Party again. Also there's the well known tendency to default to the status quo in anoraky questions as we just saw in the Aussie referendum.
(But of course I've been wrong often before - I didn't think we'd vote to leave the EU until a day or two before the vote).
There wouldn't need to be a referendum if PR were in the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos. It is in the LibDem one. The challenge is getting it into the Labour manifesto - even if it is in very small print on page 46.
What always makes me laugh about those who want to change the constitution, is they think that people will vote exactly the same way if it was changed.
I know lots of people who have voted LD; only a few of them are actual supporters of the party. It is currently a catchall vote for both anti Tory and anti Labour depending upon constituency.
UKIP/REF, meanwhile, would do much better under PR, I suspect....
Yes - UKIP/REF and also the Greens would do much better under PR - and so they should.
I'm not in favour of a list system (too much power to the Parties and no choice for the voter and no local accountability.
I'm in favour of a Single Transferable Vote in constituencies of 4 or 5 members where there is competition between members of the same party and also local accountability.
I'm not in favour of it for party advantage. I'm in favour of it because it would be fairer and more democratic and lead to better government. It would also as a bonus avoid all the tactical voting shenanigans.
I agree that it may change which party people vote for, perhaps dramatically. But's that OK. That's good. It would be a more honest vote.
I would prefer constituencies kept the same size and just the single MP but chosen by AV.
Option 1 Increase the number of MPs to 900 (average 75,000, can still get them in Westminster Hall)
Option 2 Increase the number of MPs to 2,267. Rationale is as follows
1851
UK popn in 1851 = 27368800
Halve that because only men had the vote
UK Potential voter popn in 1851 = 13,684,400
UK number of MPs in 1852 = 654 seats
Voter/seat ratio = 20,924. Call it 30,000
2023
UK popn in 2023 = 68million (probably)
Ideal number of seats = 68million/30,000 = 2,267.
So we should have 2,267 MPs, each holding an average of 30,000 people.
Representation goes up, party loyalty goes down, MP workload goes down
Not really we as a nation are hugely centralised . UK Parliament at 501 seems right to me, with a large transfer of powers to local government. Put power closer to the voters.
That all seems a little excessive.
The US Congress has 435 members, does it not? For 335 million people.
Devolve more things down to a regional or county level, with appropriate funding, and let the HoC focus on things more strategic than emails from Mrs Flobbadobbadoo about the pothole on Acacia Avenue, Dorking.
We have already seen how relatively long-term Mayors can be compared to Somebody-Save-my-Butt Sunak.
Biden warns Israel not to repeat mistakes of US response after 9/11 https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4262626-biden-warns-israel-mistakes-after-9-11/ ..“Since this terrorist attack took place, we’ve seen it described as Israel’s 9/11. But for a nation the size of Israel, it was like 15 9/11s,” Biden said. “The scale may be different, but I’m sure those horrors have tapped into some kind of primal feeling in Israel just like it did in the United States. Shock, pain, rage. An all-consuming rage.” “You can’t look at what has happened here … and not scream out for justice,” Biden continued. “Justice must be done. But I caution this: While you feel that rage, don’t be consumed by it. After 9/11 we were enraged in the United States. While we sought justice and got justice, we also made mistakes.”..
‘We also made mistakes’ is a bit of a gloss. Iraq had as much to do with justice as the trial and execution of Timothy Evans.
Labour lead down to 12 points with More in Common . Fieldwork 14 to 16 October
Lab 42 Con 30 Lib Dem 12 Reform 7 Green 6 SNP 3
I think events in the Middle East are helping the Cons with attention away from domestic issues .
The combined Con and Reform at 37 would seriously worry Labour . I think a few weeks back I’d have backed Labour for both by-elections . Now I think they’re more likely to take Tamworth than Mid-Beds . The split votes there and drop in national lead might be too much of a climb . In Tamworth the Tory candidate might have harmed his hopes with Fxckgate.
This is a swing of 12% since the general election, and Labour need a 10% swing to win a majority with the old boundaries. I think we're heading for a Lab/LD coalition, (which would hopefully introduce proportional representation).
Such a coalition might want to introduce PR, but they'd probably have to have a referendum on it, and I'm not sure the public would back it, whatever the opinion polls say, since it would mean that Labour and Conservative supporters (usually around 70-75% of the electorate) would have to kiss goodbye to ever having majority governments run by their Party again. Also there's the well known tendency to default to the status quo in anoraky questions as we just saw in the Aussie referendum.
(But of course I've been wrong often before - I didn't think we'd vote to leave the EU until a day or two before the vote).
There wouldn't need to be a referendum if PR were in the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos. It is in the LibDem one. The challenge is getting it into the Labour manifesto - even if it is in very small print on page 46.
What always makes me laugh about those who want to change the constitution, is they think that people will vote exactly the same way if it was changed.
I know lots of people who have voted LD; only a few of them are actual supporters of the party. It is currently a catchall vote for both anti Tory and anti Labour depending upon constituency.
UKIP/REF, meanwhile, would do much better under PR, I suspect....
Yes - UKIP/REF and also the Greens would do much better under PR - and so they should.
I'm not in favour of a list system (too much power to the Parties and no choice for the voter and no local accountability.
I'm in favour of a Single Transferable Vote in constituencies of 4 or 5 members where there is competition between members of the same party and also local accountability.
I'm not in favour of it for party advantage. I'm in favour of it because it would be fairer and more democratic and lead to better government. It would also as a bonus avoid all the tactical voting shenanigans.
I agree that it may change which party people vote for, perhaps dramatically. But's that OK. That's good. It would be a more honest vote.
I would prefer constituencies kept the same size and just the single MP but chosen by AV.
Option 1 Increase the number of MPs to 900 (average 75,000, can still get them in Westminster Hall)
Option 2 Increase the number of MPs to 2,267. Rationale is as follows
1851
UK popn in 1851 = 27368800
Halve that because only men had the vote
UK Potential voter popn in 1851 = 13,684,400
UK number of MPs in 1852 = 654 seats
Voter/seat ratio = 20,924. Call it 30,000
2023
UK popn in 2023 = 68million (probably)
Ideal number of seats = 68million/30,000 = 2,267.
So we should have 2,267 MPs, each holding an average of 30,000 people.
Representation goes up, party loyalty goes down, MP workload goes down
Not really we as a nation are hugely centralised . UK Parliament at 501 seems right to me, with a large transfer of powers to local government. Put power closer to the voters.
Lords needs trimming for sure - the only Upper House with more members than its Lower House.
Labour lead down to 12 points with More in Common . Fieldwork 14 to 16 October
Lab 42 Con 30 Lib Dem 12 Reform 7 Green 6 SNP 3
I think events in the Middle East are helping the Cons with attention away from domestic issues .
The combined Con and Reform at 37 would seriously worry Labour . I think a few weeks back I’d have backed Labour for both by-elections . Now I think they’re more likely to take Tamworth than Mid-Beds . The split votes there and drop in national lead might be too much of a climb . In Tamworth the Tory candidate might have harmed his hopes with Fxckgate.
This is a swing of 12% since the general election, and Labour need a 10% swing to win a majority with the old boundaries. I think we're heading for a Lab/LD coalition, (which would hopefully introduce proportional representation).
Such a coalition might want to introduce PR, but they'd probably have to have a referendum on it, and I'm not sure the public would back it, whatever the opinion polls say, since it would mean that Labour and Conservative supporters (usually around 70-75% of the electorate) would have to kiss goodbye to ever having majority governments run by their Party again. Also there's the well known tendency to default to the status quo in anoraky questions as we just saw in the Aussie referendum.
(But of course I've been wrong often before - I didn't think we'd vote to leave the EU until a day or two before the vote).
There wouldn't need to be a referendum if PR were in the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos. It is in the LibDem one. The challenge is getting it into the Labour manifesto - even if it is in very small print on page 46.
What always makes me laugh about those who want to change the constitution, is they think that people will vote exactly the same way if it was changed.
I know lots of people who have voted LD; only a few of them are actual supporters of the party. It is currently a catchall vote for both anti Tory and anti Labour depending upon constituency.
UKIP/REF, meanwhile, would do much better under PR, I suspect....
This is spot on. In the event there was PR, then all the political parties would split to some extent. There would be at least seven different parties with decent representations:
Reclaim / UKIP Traditional Conservatives Cameroon Conservatives Liberally Party Social Democratic Party Traditonal Left Wing Party Greens
I suspect the Liberally Party wouldn't get many more seats than they do now. And I suspect Reclaim and the Greens would be the major beneficiaries.
Oooh agree with that just add others and youre there though I cant see there being a place for the Cameroon conservatives. Theyd either go traditional or Liberally.
On support Id guess
Reclaim / UKIP - 10% Traditional Conservatives 30% Liberally Party 10% Social Democratic Party 30% Traditonal Left Wing Party 7% Greens 8% Others 5%
I suspect the Greens and Reclaim would be more like 15% each, and the traditional Left and Right parties would be slightly lower. I suspect the Liberally Party would be on more like 6-8%.
I think that is about right.
LDs are currently overachieving their actual base of support.
I reckon we'd have some very, very tight coalitions with small majorities.
I would only support a change in electoral system if it resulted in more - and more interesting - political betting markets.
Though philosophically I support AV, I oppose any change which does away with then unique nature of general election night from 10pm onwards.
Genuine question - while any deaths are horrific and I do not wish to minimise them in any way, is there independent verification of the number killed in the Gaza hospital explosion? There may well be but I have not seen it.
I think the answer is "not yet".
The source I would give credence to as and when he had anything to say is Canon Richard Sewell in Jerusalem and of the Diocese of Jerusalem (whose hospital it is) whose TwiX is:
Biden warns Israel not to repeat mistakes of US response after 9/11 https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4262626-biden-warns-israel-mistakes-after-9-11/ ..“Since this terrorist attack took place, we’ve seen it described as Israel’s 9/11. But for a nation the size of Israel, it was like 15 9/11s,” Biden said. “The scale may be different, but I’m sure those horrors have tapped into some kind of primal feeling in Israel just like it did in the United States. Shock, pain, rage. An all-consuming rage.” “You can’t look at what has happened here … and not scream out for justice,” Biden continued. “Justice must be done. But I caution this: While you feel that rage, don’t be consumed by it. After 9/11 we were enraged in the United States. While we sought justice and got justice, we also made mistakes.”..
Bit of an understatement to describe 20 years in Afghanistan that achieved almost nothing.
Labour lead down to 12 points with More in Common . Fieldwork 14 to 16 October
Lab 42 Con 30 Lib Dem 12 Reform 7 Green 6 SNP 3
I think events in the Middle East are helping the Cons with attention away from domestic issues .
The combined Con and Reform at 37 would seriously worry Labour . I think a few weeks back I’d have backed Labour for both by-elections . Now I think they’re more likely to take Tamworth than Mid-Beds . The split votes there and drop in national lead might be too much of a climb . In Tamworth the Tory candidate might have harmed his hopes with Fxckgate.
This is a swing of 12% since the general election, and Labour need a 10% swing to win a majority with the old boundaries. I think we're heading for a Lab/LD coalition, (which would hopefully introduce proportional representation).
Such a coalition might want to introduce PR, but they'd probably have to have a referendum on it, and I'm not sure the public would back it, whatever the opinion polls say, since it would mean that Labour and Conservative supporters (usually around 70-75% of the electorate) would have to kiss goodbye to ever having majority governments run by their Party again. Also there's the well known tendency to default to the status quo in anoraky questions as we just saw in the Aussie referendum.
(But of course I've been wrong often before - I didn't think we'd vote to leave the EU until a day or two before the vote).
There wouldn't need to be a referendum if PR were in the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos. It is in the LibDem one. The challenge is getting it into the Labour manifesto - even if it is in very small print on page 46.
What always makes me laugh about those who want to change the constitution, is they think that people will vote exactly the same way if it was changed.
I know lots of people who have voted LD; only a few of them are actual supporters of the party. It is currently a catchall vote for both anti Tory and anti Labour depending upon constituency.
UKIP/REF, meanwhile, would do much better under PR, I suspect....
Yes - UKIP/REF and also the Greens would do much better under PR - and so they should.
I'm not in favour of a list system (too much power to the Parties and no choice for the voter and no local accountability.
I'm in favour of a Single Transferable Vote in constituencies of 4 or 5 members where there is competition between members of the same party and also local accountability.
I'm not in favour of it for party advantage. I'm in favour of it because it would be fairer and more democratic and lead to better government. It would also as a bonus avoid all the tactical voting shenanigans.
I agree that it may change which party people vote for, perhaps dramatically. But's that OK. That's good. It would be a more honest vote.
I would prefer constituencies kept the same size and just the single MP but chosen by AV.
Option 1 Increase the number of MPs to 900 (average 75,000, can still get them in Westminster Hall)
Option 2 Increase the number of MPs to 2,267. Rationale is as follows
1851
UK popn in 1851 = 27368800
Halve that because only men had the vote
UK Potential voter popn in 1851 = 13,684,400
UK number of MPs in 1852 = 654 seats
Voter/seat ratio = 20,924. Call it 30,000
2023
UK popn in 2023 = 68million (probably)
Ideal number of seats = 68million/30,000 = 2,267.
So we should have 2,267 MPs, each holding an average of 30,000 people.
Representation goes up, party loyalty goes down, MP workload goes down
Not really we as a nation are hugely centralised . UK Parliament at 501 seems right to me, with a large transfer of powers to local government. Put power closer to the voters.
Lords needs trimming for sure - the only Upper House with more members than its Lower House.
I remain unconvinced that is a real problem. Partly the Lords is about a wide range of expertise, and the possibility to apply that to new legoslation.
I'm with you on clearing out the crooks, however - of whom there are far too many.
Looks more like my neighbours driveway, which they are currently digging it up to replace some bricks.
I’m unclear what the debate is here. The atom bomb over Hiroshima didn’t produce a crater, but it still killed a lot of people! Do any of these commentators or us here have relevant forensics experience as to what different explosions would produce?
The issue is that we were told early on that Israel had dropped bombs there. If Israel had dropped one of their bombs then there would have been a massive crater. We were also told the hospital had collapsed and yet it still seems to be standing. Lies from the very start. Just like Hamas lied when they said they don't attack civilians. Why should anyone trust a single word Hamas says?
I don’t think we should trust what Hamas say. I wouldn’t trust the IDF much either, who have told plenty of lies in the past. We should avoid rushing to conclusions.
I am also quite sceptical of armchair “experts” on social media who have suddenly become so knowledgeable on explosion forensics, having recently been experts on drone warfare in Ukraine, or epidemiology during COVID-19…
That's the point - you don't need to be a forensic explosives expert to see that there is no huge crater, the building is still standing and that there was a larger fire at Luton airport last week. Yet, despite this, many people just repeated the lies that they had been told unquestioningly.
I think we need to know - for one thing - how many people were at the hospital.
Media on the spot eg BBC correspondents have been reporting 50-100 people in single houses.
How many thousand were present at the hospital? It is an 80 bed hospital founded by CMS in 1882, and run by the Episcopal Church of Jerusalem and the Middle East. We will get accurate reports.
0.5-1kt - a small *nuke* of yield in the heart of a busy city. 218 dead.
The scene in picture is more like the aftermath of a car bombing in NI.
Going on similar events in Ukraine, the only single strike with a believed death toll anything like that is the Mariupol Theatre bombing - because everyone was sheltering in the basement. Could it be that big a number because of overcrowding? Perhaps. But it doesn't seem likely. Particularly if, as now seems to be the case, it was a failed rocket rather than an airstrike. The number of dead given out was also suspiciously round and quick. Like Hamas realised it might be a lot of people and took a punt. Could conceivably be casualties - which would include those who escaped with minor injuries, Not that it matters too much if it was 50, 100, or 500 people it's appalling. But it does rather speak to the notion was a bit of a rushed attempt at deflection, designed to muddy the waters rather than reliable information.
God only knows what certain media outlets were doing reporting it more or less straight from the off, given there were immediate reasons to go "hang on a minute". It pains one to say it, given usually like to stick up for them when the usual 'bias bullies' shout at it for not reporting things they like, but the BBC in particular have likely done huge damage to themselves not just with initial failings, but completely failing to deal with that initial failure. A tweet which cites Israel, with just an 'according to Hamas' is still up there a day later, despite it being incredibly inflammatory and shared as fact. They really do need to apologise, and explain how they editorially got it so catastrophically wrong in the emphasis of their coverage. It may well have cost more lives. Heads should really roll. Given the misinformation around this conflict, and how easily it can descend into violent rage, the BBC in particular have to be absolutely at the top of their game as they are needed to be a voice of relative trust. They fell hugely short on this story. If you can't verify something, wait, and if it can't wait be very careful how you word things. After all, the organisation has just spent half its time dancing on the head of a pin over whether to call Hamas 'terrorists'. The least it could do would be to have a house style for breaking news that's uncertain, that's very, very neutral until those on the ground are 100% sure of their information and have verified it.
Genuine question - while any deaths are horrific and I do not wish to minimise them in any way, is there independent verification of the number killed in the Gaza hospital explosion? There may well be but I have not seen it.
I think the answer is "not yet".
The source I would give credence to as and when he had anything to say is Canon Richard Sewell in Jerusalem and of the Diocese of Jerusalem (whose hospital it is) whose TwiX is:
He started by doing a bit of a Leon/BBC but is being honest about it.
Absolutely, or possibly certain Episcopalian Sources (ie USA), Anglican Communion Office, or ABC. But they may well get their news from Sewell - I quoted him upthread somewhere.
Labour lead down to 12 points with More in Common . Fieldwork 14 to 16 October
Lab 42 Con 30 Lib Dem 12 Reform 7 Green 6 SNP 3
I think events in the Middle East are helping the Cons with attention away from domestic issues .
The combined Con and Reform at 37 would seriously worry Labour . I think a few weeks back I’d have backed Labour for both by-elections . Now I think they’re more likely to take Tamworth than Mid-Beds . The split votes there and drop in national lead might be too much of a climb . In Tamworth the Tory candidate might have harmed his hopes with Fxckgate.
This is a swing of 12% since the general election, and Labour need a 10% swing to win a majority with the old boundaries. I think we're heading for a Lab/LD coalition, (which would hopefully introduce proportional representation).
Such a coalition might want to introduce PR, but they'd probably have to have a referendum on it, and I'm not sure the public would back it, whatever the opinion polls say, since it would mean that Labour and Conservative supporters (usually around 70-75% of the electorate) would have to kiss goodbye to ever having majority governments run by their Party again. Also there's the well known tendency to default to the status quo in anoraky questions as we just saw in the Aussie referendum.
(But of course I've been wrong often before - I didn't think we'd vote to leave the EU until a day or two before the vote).
There wouldn't need to be a referendum if PR were in the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos. It is in the LibDem one. The challenge is getting it into the Labour manifesto - even if it is in very small print on page 46.
What always makes me laugh about those who want to change the constitution, is they think that people will vote exactly the same way if it was changed.
I know lots of people who have voted LD; only a few of them are actual supporters of the party. It is currently a catchall vote for both anti Tory and anti Labour depending upon constituency.
UKIP/REF, meanwhile, would do much better under PR, I suspect....
Yes - UKIP/REF and also the Greens would do much better under PR - and so they should.
I'm not in favour of a list system (too much power to the Parties and no choice for the voter and no local accountability.
I'm in favour of a Single Transferable Vote in constituencies of 4 or 5 members where there is competition between members of the same party and also local accountability.
I'm not in favour of it for party advantage. I'm in favour of it because it would be fairer and more democratic and lead to better government. It would also as a bonus avoid all the tactical voting shenanigans.
I agree that it may change which party people vote for, perhaps dramatically. But's that OK. That's good. It would be a more honest vote.
I would prefer constituencies kept the same size and just the single MP but chosen by AV.
Option 1 Increase the number of MPs to 900 (average 75,000, can still get them in Westminster Hall)
Option 2 Increase the number of MPs to 2,267. Rationale is as follows
1851
UK popn in 1851 = 27368800
Halve that because only men had the vote
UK Potential voter popn in 1851 = 13,684,400
UK number of MPs in 1852 = 654 seats
Voter/seat ratio = 20,924. Call it 30,000
2023
UK popn in 2023 = 68million (probably)
Ideal number of seats = 68million/30,000 = 2,267.
So we should have 2,267 MPs, each holding an average of 30,000 people.
Representation goes up, party loyalty goes down, MP workload goes down
Not really we as a nation are hugely centralised . UK Parliament at 501 seems right to me, with a large transfer of powers to local government. Put power closer to the voters.
Lords needs trimming for sure - the only Upper House with more members than its Lower House.
Definitely. About 301 should do it. The dumbass Tories should have done it but will now spend years whingeing about reform if Starmer does it which he may well do.
Labour lead down to 12 points with More in Common . Fieldwork 14 to 16 October
Lab 42 Con 30 Lib Dem 12 Reform 7 Green 6 SNP 3
I think events in the Middle East are helping the Cons with attention away from domestic issues .
The combined Con and Reform at 37 would seriously worry Labour . I think a few weeks back I’d have backed Labour for both by-elections . Now I think they’re more likely to take Tamworth than Mid-Beds . The split votes there and drop in national lead might be too much of a climb . In Tamworth the Tory candidate might have harmed his hopes with Fxckgate.
This is a swing of 12% since the general election, and Labour need a 10% swing to win a majority with the old boundaries. I think we're heading for a Lab/LD coalition, (which would hopefully introduce proportional representation).
Such a coalition might want to introduce PR, but they'd probably have to have a referendum on it, and I'm not sure the public would back it, whatever the opinion polls say, since it would mean that Labour and Conservative supporters (usually around 70-75% of the electorate) would have to kiss goodbye to ever having majority governments run by their Party again. Also there's the well known tendency to default to the status quo in anoraky questions as we just saw in the Aussie referendum.
(But of course I've been wrong often before - I didn't think we'd vote to leave the EU until a day or two before the vote).
There wouldn't need to be a referendum if PR were in the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos. It is in the LibDem one. The challenge is getting it into the Labour manifesto - even if it is in very small print on page 46.
What always makes me laugh about those who want to change the constitution, is they think that people will vote exactly the same way if it was changed.
I know lots of people who have voted LD; only a few of them are actual supporters of the party. It is currently a catchall vote for both anti Tory and anti Labour depending upon constituency.
UKIP/REF, meanwhile, would do much better under PR, I suspect....
This is spot on. In the event there was PR, then all the political parties would split to some extent. There would be at least seven different parties with decent representations:
Reclaim / UKIP Traditional Conservatives Cameroon Conservatives Liberally Party Social Democratic Party Traditonal Left Wing Party Greens
I suspect the Liberally Party wouldn't get many more seats than they do now. And I suspect Reclaim and the Greens would be the major beneficiaries.
Oooh agree with that just add others and youre there though I cant see there being a place for the Cameroon conservatives. Theyd either go traditional or Liberally.
On support Id guess
Reclaim / UKIP - 10% Traditional Conservatives 30% Liberally Party 10% Social Democratic Party 30% Traditonal Left Wing Party 7% Greens 8% Others 5%
I suspect the Greens and Reclaim would be more like 15% each, and the traditional Left and Right parties would be slightly lower. I suspect the Liberally Party would be on more like 6-8%.
I think that is about right.
LDs are currently overachieving their actual base of support.
I reckon we'd have some very, very tight coalitions with small majorities.
If it was true PR, then that 6%-8% for the Libdems would result in 40 to 50 seats, many more than now, so how are they over achieving their base support now with only 14 seats?
I'm guessing it's not this early day motion's demand for the unconditional release of Israeli hostages that bothers you, nor the condemnation of Hamas? Is there something else in the text of the motion that causes you concern?
Labour lead down to 12 points with More in Common . Fieldwork 14 to 16 October
Lab 42 Con 30 Lib Dem 12 Reform 7 Green 6 SNP 3
I think events in the Middle East are helping the Cons with attention away from domestic issues .
The combined Con and Reform at 37 would seriously worry Labour . I think a few weeks back I’d have backed Labour for both by-elections . Now I think they’re more likely to take Tamworth than Mid-Beds . The split votes there and drop in national lead might be too much of a climb . In Tamworth the Tory candidate might have harmed his hopes with Fxckgate.
This is a swing of 12% since the general election, and Labour need a 10% swing to win a majority with the old boundaries. I think we're heading for a Lab/LD coalition, (which would hopefully introduce proportional representation).
Such a coalition might want to introduce PR, but they'd probably have to have a referendum on it, and I'm not sure the public would back it, whatever the opinion polls say, since it would mean that Labour and Conservative supporters (usually around 70-75% of the electorate) would have to kiss goodbye to ever having majority governments run by their Party again. Also there's the well known tendency to default to the status quo in anoraky questions as we just saw in the Aussie referendum.
(But of course I've been wrong often before - I didn't think we'd vote to leave the EU until a day or two before the vote).
There wouldn't need to be a referendum if PR were in the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos. It is in the LibDem one. The challenge is getting it into the Labour manifesto - even if it is in very small print on page 46.
What always makes me laugh about those who want to change the constitution, is they think that people will vote exactly the same way if it was changed.
I know lots of people who have voted LD; only a few of them are actual supporters of the party. It is currently a catchall vote for both anti Tory and anti Labour depending upon constituency.
UKIP/REF, meanwhile, would do much better under PR, I suspect....
Yes - UKIP/REF and also the Greens would do much better under PR - and so they should.
I'm not in favour of a list system (too much power to the Parties and no choice for the voter and no local accountability.
I'm in favour of a Single Transferable Vote in constituencies of 4 or 5 members where there is competition between members of the same party and also local accountability.
I'm not in favour of it for party advantage. I'm in favour of it because it would be fairer and more democratic and lead to better government. It would also as a bonus avoid all the tactical voting shenanigans.
I agree that it may change which party people vote for, perhaps dramatically. But's that OK. That's good. It would be a more honest vote.
I would prefer constituencies kept the same size and just the single MP but chosen by AV.
AV avoids tactical voting which is good. But if you support a particular party, you have to vote for whoever that party puts up. There is no competition between contenders from the same party. It gives the parties too much power over voter choice, in my opinion.
You don't think they could exercise exactly the same control over 3 or 4 candidates as they do over 1? They would still be choosing who those candidates are no matter how many of them you have to choose from.
But each elector would have only one vote. So the candidates from each party group are also competing against one another.
Imagine you had a constituency where the Conservative candidates were Rory Stewart, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Dominic Cummings and Suella Braverman. You have to rank them. Which one would get your vote first?
There is always the risk that a voter, appalled by the attitude and competence of a Conservative candidate, might prefer to vote for a Socialist or Lib Dem candidate ahead o fthe appalling Conservative. So The Party would need to have a good range of candidates to stop its voters rushing off into the arms of Farage,or whatever.
Rigid party control wth identikit candidates leads only to a loss of support.
Labour lead down to 12 points with More in Common . Fieldwork 14 to 16 October
Lab 42 Con 30 Lib Dem 12 Reform 7 Green 6 SNP 3
I think events in the Middle East are helping the Cons with attention away from domestic issues .
The combined Con and Reform at 37 would seriously worry Labour . I think a few weeks back I’d have backed Labour for both by-elections . Now I think they’re more likely to take Tamworth than Mid-Beds . The split votes there and drop in national lead might be too much of a climb . In Tamworth the Tory candidate might have harmed his hopes with Fxckgate.
This is a swing of 12% since the general election, and Labour need a 10% swing to win a majority with the old boundaries. I think we're heading for a Lab/LD coalition, (which would hopefully introduce proportional representation).
Such a coalition might want to introduce PR, but they'd probably have to have a referendum on it, and I'm not sure the public would back it, whatever the opinion polls say, since it would mean that Labour and Conservative supporters (usually around 70-75% of the electorate) would have to kiss goodbye to ever having majority governments run by their Party again. Also there's the well known tendency to default to the status quo in anoraky questions as we just saw in the Aussie referendum.
(But of course I've been wrong often before - I didn't think we'd vote to leave the EU until a day or two before the vote).
There wouldn't need to be a referendum if PR were in the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos. It is in the LibDem one. The challenge is getting it into the Labour manifesto - even if it is in very small print on page 46.
What always makes me laugh about those who want to change the constitution, is they think that people will vote exactly the same way if it was changed.
I know lots of people who have voted LD; only a few of them are actual supporters of the party. It is currently a catchall vote for both anti Tory and anti Labour depending upon constituency.
UKIP/REF, meanwhile, would do much better under PR, I suspect....
Yes - UKIP/REF and also the Greens would do much better under PR - and so they should.
I'm not in favour of a list system (too much power to the Parties and no choice for the voter and no local accountability.
I'm in favour of a Single Transferable Vote in constituencies of 4 or 5 members where there is competition between members of the same party and also local accountability.
I'm not in favour of it for party advantage. I'm in favour of it because it would be fairer and more democratic and lead to better government. It would also as a bonus avoid all the tactical voting shenanigans.
I agree that it may change which party people vote for, perhaps dramatically. But's that OK. That's good. It would be a more honest vote.
I would prefer constituencies kept the same size and just the single MP but chosen by AV.
Option 1 Increase the number of MPs to 900 (average 75,000, can still get them Westminster Hall)
Option 2 Increase the number of MPs to 2,267. Rationale is as follows
1851
UK popn in 1851 = 27368800
Halve that because only men had the vote
UK Potential voter popn in 1851 = 13,684,400
UK number of MPs in 1852 = 654 seats
Voter/seat ratio = 20,924. Call it 30,000
2023
UK popn in 2023 = 68million (probably)
Ideal number of seats = 68million/30,000 = 2,267.
So we should have 2,267 MPs, each holding an average of 30,000 people.
Representation goes up, party loyalty goes down, MP workload goes down
Debates would be very long if even a tiny percentage of MPs spoke for 5 minutes.
Labour lead down to 12 points with More in Common . Fieldwork 14 to 16 October
Lab 42 Con 30 Lib Dem 12 Reform 7 Green 6 SNP 3
I think events in the Middle East are helping the Cons with attention away from domestic issues .
The combined Con and Reform at 37 would seriously worry Labour . I think a few weeks back I’d have backed Labour for both by-elections . Now I think they’re more likely to take Tamworth than Mid-Beds . The split votes there and drop in national lead might be too much of a climb . In Tamworth the Tory candidate might have harmed his hopes with Fxckgate.
This is a swing of 12% since the general election, and Labour need a 10% swing to win a majority with the old boundaries. I think we're heading for a Lab/LD coalition, (which would hopefully introduce proportional representation).
Such a coalition might want to introduce PR, but they'd probably have to have a referendum on it, and I'm not sure the public would back it, whatever the opinion polls say, since it would mean that Labour and Conservative supporters (usually around 70-75% of the electorate) would have to kiss goodbye to ever having majority governments run by their Party again. Also there's the well known tendency to default to the status quo in anoraky questions as we just saw in the Aussie referendum.
(But of course I've been wrong often before - I didn't think we'd vote to leave the EU until a day or two before the vote).
There wouldn't need to be a referendum if PR were in the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos. It is in the LibDem one. The challenge is getting it into the Labour manifesto - even if it is in very small print on page 46.
What always makes me laugh about those who want to change the constitution, is they think that people will vote exactly the same way if it was changed.
I know lots of people who have voted LD; only a few of them are actual supporters of the party. It is currently a catchall vote for both anti Tory and anti Labour depending upon constituency.
UKIP/REF, meanwhile, would do much better under PR, I suspect....
Yes - UKIP/REF and also the Greens would do much better under PR - and so they should.
I'm not in favour of a list system (too much power to the Parties and no choice for the voter and no local accountability.
I'm in favour of a Single Transferable Vote in constituencies of 4 or 5 members where there is competition between members of the same party and also local accountability.
I'm not in favour of it for party advantage. I'm in favour of it because it would be fairer and more democratic and lead to better government. It would also as a bonus avoid all the tactical voting shenanigans.
I agree that it may change which party people vote for, perhaps dramatically. But's that OK. That's good. It would be a more honest vote.
I would prefer constituencies kept the same size and just the single MP but chosen by AV.
Option 1 Increase the number of MPs to 900 (average 75,000, can still get them in Westminster Hall)
Option 2 Increase the number of MPs to 2,267. Rationale is as follows
1851
UK popn in 1851 = 27368800
Halve that because only men had the vote
UK Potential voter popn in 1851 = 13,684,400
UK number of MPs in 1852 = 654 seats
Voter/seat ratio = 20,924. Call it 30,000
2023
UK popn in 2023 = 68million (probably)
Ideal number of seats = 68million/30,000 = 2,267.
So we should have 2,267 MPs, each holding an average of 30,000 people.
Representation goes up, party loyalty goes down, MP workload goes down
Not really we as a nation are hugely centralised . UK Parliament at 501 seems right to me, with a large transfer of powers to local government. Put power closer to the voters.
Lords needs trimming for sure - the only Upper House with more members than its Lower House.
I remain unconvinced that is a real problem. Partly the Lords is about a wide range of expertise, and the possibility to apply that to new legislation.
I'm with you on clearing out the crooks, however - of whom there are far too many.
There are many issues with the Lords. Lord knows I have ranted about several in my time.
But the idea that a major problem is there are more than in the lower house I find to be unpersuasive and even a bit weird.
It is certainly true that is not normal. I also do agree there are more than needed for their function and have proposed ideas to reduce the number. But is there some universal rule that an upper house must be less than the lower? What is the correct number for an upper house? What proportion is the proper one?
The question is what we want them to do (if anything) and how many you think you need for that (if any). Then, how do you select that number. That's it.
You may not agree with it, and that's fine. But the motion is not wholly unreasonable, starting as it does with: This House utterly condemns the massacre of Israeli civilians and taking of hostages by Hamas.
"The UK is starting to accept that prison doesn’t work As the Justice Secretary has recognised, short sentences are not effective in reducing reoffending. By David Gauke"
Channel 4 news is saying that the Israeli tape appears to be fake:
"Israel’s presentation has a Rear Admiral and the tape saying the malfunctioning missile fired from cemetery next to hospital. That doesn’t match video of the event. …"
"Israel’s info graphic has the firing site 5kms SW of the hospital - it cannot be there and the next door cemetery , can it?"
"Several experts confirm Hamas’ view to @Channel4News that the audio tape of “Hamas” operatives talking about the missile malfunction is a fake . They say the tone, syntax, accent and idiom are absurd."
"The UK is starting to accept that prison doesn’t work As the Justice Secretary has recognised, short sentences are not effective in reducing reoffending. By David Gauke"
I watched the statement and questions the other day,
It was depressingly filled with partisan posturing by the Minister, who said nothing about why he had not worked towards increasing Court capacity several years ago - and did not come up (like all his predecessors since 2011) to a solution once and for all to the continuing Indeterminate Sentencing scandal.
Since we are in a Twilight of the Political Pygmies phase, how likely do you think it is that anything will happen?
numbers posted confirmed, Speaker has NOT been elected, House now adjourned.
Coach Jockstrap pinned to the mat yet again.
Does it go to trial by combat if no result is reached after a number of rounds? I think that's how it works in the HoC. Who can forget Betty Boothroyd decapitating that other bloke with a rusty chainsaw?
If Starmer is reading this (which I bloody well hope he is not), I would say not to waste time and effort on major constitutional reforms. The temptation will be to be radical and partisan, but that will either be rushed and come with major unforeseen consequences, or suck in resources and take up a whole term when political capital could be spent on other things. Save it for a second term.
In the short term, after a reasonable influx to as per convention make the Chamber closer to HoC proportions, implement the following simplistic measures to set the scene:
Set an an upper limit, with no new Lords created if it is reached (argument over perfect size can await full reform eg whether to elect etc);
Anyone who does not attend with a certain frequency in a year (say 25% of votes for example) loses their seat in the House (but keeps their title) unless the House has approved an absence, just like local government;
No MPs or someone who worked for an MP (or Parliament) may be appointed until 8 years or 3 parliamentary terms has passed from when they left the House or sought alternative employment, whichever is the lesser;
No one who donates more than £1000 (or whose organisation has donated more than £10000) to a political party may be made a Peer until 6 years or 2 parliamentary terms has passed, whichever is longer;
Ban reisignation honours lists;
A maximum of 30 years may be served in the Lords;
I'm still workshopping these, which is why they change a bit from time to time when I bring it up.
Labour lead down to 12 points with More in Common . Fieldwork 14 to 16 October
Lab 42 Con 30 Lib Dem 12 Reform 7 Green 6 SNP 3
I think events in the Middle East are helping the Cons with attention away from domestic issues .
The combined Con and Reform at 37 would seriously worry Labour . I think a few weeks back I’d have backed Labour for both by-elections . Now I think they’re more likely to take Tamworth than Mid-Beds . The split votes there and drop in national lead might be too much of a climb . In Tamworth the Tory candidate might have harmed his hopes with Fxckgate.
This is a swing of 12% since the general election, and Labour need a 10% swing to win a majority with the old boundaries. I think we're heading for a Lab/LD coalition, (which would hopefully introduce proportional representation).
Such a coalition might want to introduce PR, but they'd probably have to have a referendum on it, and I'm not sure the public would back it, whatever the opinion polls say, since it would mean that Labour and Conservative supporters (usually around 70-75% of the electorate) would have to kiss goodbye to ever having majority governments run by their Party again. Also there's the well known tendency to default to the status quo in anoraky questions as we just saw in the Aussie referendum.
(But of course I've been wrong often before - I didn't think we'd vote to leave the EU until a day or two before the vote).
There wouldn't need to be a referendum if PR were in the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos. It is in the LibDem one. The challenge is getting it into the Labour manifesto - even if it is in very small print on page 46.
What always makes me laugh about those who want to change the constitution, is they think that people will vote exactly the same way if it was changed.
I know lots of people who have voted LD; only a few of them are actual supporters of the party. It is currently a catchall vote for both anti Tory and anti Labour depending upon constituency.
UKIP/REF, meanwhile, would do much better under PR, I suspect....
Yes - UKIP/REF and also the Greens would do much better under PR - and so they should.
I'm not in favour of a list system (too much power to the Parties and no choice for the voter and no local accountability.
I'm in favour of a Single Transferable Vote in constituencies of 4 or 5 members where there is competition between members of the same party and also local accountability.
I'm not in favour of it for party advantage. I'm in favour of it because it would be fairer and more democratic and lead to better government. It would also as a bonus avoid all the tactical voting shenanigans.
I agree that it may change which party people vote for, perhaps dramatically. But's that OK. That's good. It would be a more honest vote.
I would prefer constituencies kept the same size and just the single MP but chosen by AV.
AV avoids tactical voting which is good. But if you support a particular party, you have to vote for whoever that party puts up. There is no competition between contenders from the same party. It gives the parties too much power over voter choice, in my opinion.
You don't think they could exercise exactly the same control over 3 or 4 candidates as they do over 1? They would still be choosing who those candidates are no matter how many of them you have to choose from.
But each elector would have only one vote. So the candidates from each party group are also competing against one another.
Imagine you had a constituency where the Conservative candidates were Rory Stewart, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Dominic Cummings and Suella Braverman. You have to rank them. Which one would get your vote first?
There is always the risk that a voter, appalled by the attitude and competence of a Conservative candidate, might prefer to vote for a Socialist or Lib Dem candidate ahead o fthe appalling Conservative. So The Party would need to have a good range of candidates to stop its voters rushing off into the arms of Farage,or whatever.
Rigid party control wth identikit candidates leads only to a loss of support.
Good innit?
But that wasn't my point. It was Barnesian who is arguing for STV with multiple MPs and using the reason that it prevents parties deciding who the candidates are. I was poiting out that they can decide that just as easily with 4 candidates from each party as they can with one so it does not reduce the power of the parties at all.
numbers posted confirmed, Speaker has NOT been elected, House now adjourned.
Coach Jockstrap pinned to the mat yet again.
They have zero short term memory I note - so outraged that some members won't accept the choice of the caucus, despite forcing the initial choice of the caucus out mere days ago, and despite a handful bringing down the last choice of the caucus a week or so ago (which is, of course, the Democrats fault, but also the members should support the choice of the people who sided with the Democrats).
"The UK is starting to accept that prison doesn’t work As the Justice Secretary has recognised, short sentences are not effective in reducing reoffending. By David Gauke"
Look at Bukele's popularity rating in El Salavador... Two inconvenient truths: being tough on crime both reduces crime, and makes you very very popular...
Biden warns Israel not to repeat mistakes of US response after 9/11 https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4262626-biden-warns-israel-mistakes-after-9-11/ ..“Since this terrorist attack took place, we’ve seen it described as Israel’s 9/11. But for a nation the size of Israel, it was like 15 9/11s,” Biden said. “The scale may be different, but I’m sure those horrors have tapped into some kind of primal feeling in Israel just like it did in the United States. Shock, pain, rage. An all-consuming rage.” “You can’t look at what has happened here … and not scream out for justice,” Biden continued. “Justice must be done. But I caution this: While you feel that rage, don’t be consumed by it. After 9/11 we were enraged in the United States. While we sought justice and got justice, we also made mistakes.”..
Bit of an understatement to describe 20 years in Afghanistan that achieved almost nothing.
I still wonder, had they done Afghanistan and NOT Iraq, whether a genuine rebuilding if Afghanistan might have been possible.
"The UK is starting to accept that prison doesn’t work As the Justice Secretary has recognised, short sentences are not effective in reducing reoffending. By David Gauke"
I watched the statement and questions the other day,
It was depressingly filled with partisan posturing by the Minister, who said nothing about why he had not worked towards increasing Court capacity several years ago - and did not come up (like all his predecessors since 2011) to a solution once and for all to the continuing Indeterminate Sentencing scandal.
Since we are in a Twilight of the Political Pygmies phase, how likely do you think it is that anything will happen?
If the minister was Alex Chalk then I imagine he hadn’t worked towards increasing court capacity several years ago because he has only been Justice Sec since April.
Unfortunately his brief doesn’t include Minister for Time Machines. Sadly he is probably one of the few MPs who would be able to work towards sensible plans with time however he’s likely going to lose his seat so we will never know.
If you look at the Daily Mail general coverage the defacto statement is Hamas a terrorist organisation, Hamas terrorists etc etc etc. They do from time to time mix it up with terms such as operatives, fighters etc, often within the same article. It called writing.
So they have no issue with making a claim that Hamas are terrorists.
The BBC on the other hand have tried to claim we don't use the term terrorism / terrorist, we don't judge etc, but they have and they do about other terrorist incidents, just not when it comes to Hamas, they only quote others.
By every definition of the word, what Hamas did to Israel was terrorism.
I don't know what the big deal is here. The BBC routinely say that Hamas are a designated 'terrorist organisation'.
What they don't do is colloquially call them 'terrorists' in the flow of their reporting. They call them Hamas, with that frequent rider, a designated terrorist organisation.
So you don't hear stuff like, "the Israelis are determined and well armed, but so are the terrorists".
Which imo we wouldn't want because it lacks gravitas.
Absolute rubbish. The specific objection is to the BBC's repeated use of the word "militants" rather than "terrorists".
I don't see how that makes what I said rubbish. But sure you could very happily slip 'terrorists' into a story like that. For me the T word sits well in reporting of atrocities, less well in reporting of the war generally or the political and diplomacy aspects. Reflecting the duality of Hamas in a way. They are both a terrorist group and the government of Gaza.
You explanation, in which you implied they would happily call them terrorists if it ever came up naturally, was, therefore, absolute rubbish.
No, I said they call them Hamas with a frequent reminder that they are a terrorist organisation. That's what I've experienced with the coverage and it feels ok to me.
"The UK is starting to accept that prison doesn’t work As the Justice Secretary has recognised, short sentences are not effective in reducing reoffending. By David Gauke"
Look at Bukele's popularity rating in El Salavador... Two inconvenient truths: being tough on crime both reduces crime, and makes you very very popular...
The US - sadly - is a bit of a counter-example. There's no evidence of any correlation between harshness of sentences and crime rates. (Indeed, the - admittedly weak - correlation is actually the other way around.)
The trick to stopping offending is not principally the harshness of the sentences for those convicted. It is about catching and convicting the right people. A twenty year sentence for shoplifting is not a deterrent if you don't think it'll ever get to court.
"The UK is starting to accept that prison doesn’t work As the Justice Secretary has recognised, short sentences are not effective in reducing reoffending. By David Gauke"
Look at Bukele's popularity rating in El Salavador... Two inconvenient truths: being tough on crime both reduces crime, and makes you very very popular...
The USA locks up more people per capita than any other free country, yet doesn't seem to be a crime free paradise.
As well as the 2 parliamentary by-elections we have 4 locals tomorrow. There are Con defences in Shropshire, Worcester, and Worcestershire, and a Res defence in Surrey. For the reaction after Mid-Beds I am hoping for 31%, 30%, 29% and 10% the rest - but in which order?
Here's an interesting detail: "The four Republicans who voted for Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) on Tuesday but not today — Reps. Vern Buchanan (Fla.), Drew Ferguson (Ga.), Mariannette Miller-Meeks (Iowa) and Pete Stauber (Minn.) — don’t fall into the categories that many of the previous Jordan holdouts do.
None of them are on the House Appropriations Committee or the House Armed Services Committee. Nor are they members of the Problem Solvers Caucus, which is home to many moderate Republicans. And they don’t represent especially competitive districts.
Labour lead down to 12 points with More in Common . Fieldwork 14 to 16 October
Lab 42 Con 30 Lib Dem 12 Reform 7 Green 6 SNP 3
I think events in the Middle East are helping the Cons with attention away from domestic issues .
The combined Con and Reform at 37 would seriously worry Labour . I think a few weeks back I’d have backed Labour for both by-elections . Now I think they’re more likely to take Tamworth than Mid-Beds . The split votes there and drop in national lead might be too much of a climb . In Tamworth the Tory candidate might have harmed his hopes with Fxckgate.
This is a swing of 12% since the general election, and Labour need a 10% swing to win a majority with the old boundaries. I think we're heading for a Lab/LD coalition, (which would hopefully introduce proportional representation).
Such a coalition might want to introduce PR, but they'd probably have to have a referendum on it, and I'm not sure the public would back it, whatever the opinion polls say, since it would mean that Labour and Conservative supporters (usually around 70-75% of the electorate) would have to kiss goodbye to ever having majority governments run by their Party again. Also there's the well known tendency to default to the status quo in anoraky questions as we just saw in the Aussie referendum.
(But of course I've been wrong often before - I didn't think we'd vote to leave the EU until a day or two before the vote).
There wouldn't need to be a referendum if PR were in the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos. It is in the LibDem one. The challenge is getting it into the Labour manifesto - even if it is in very small print on page 46.
What always makes me laugh about those who want to change the constitution, is they think that people will vote exactly the same way if it was changed.
I know lots of people who have voted LD; only a few of them are actual supporters of the party. It is currently a catchall vote for both anti Tory and anti Labour depending upon constituency.
UKIP/REF, meanwhile, would do much better under PR, I suspect....
Yes - UKIP/REF and also the Greens would do much better under PR - and so they should.
I'm not in favour of a list system (too much power to the Parties and no choice for the voter and no local accountability.
I'm in favour of a Single Transferable Vote in constituencies of 4 or 5 members where there is competition between members of the same party and also local accountability.
I'm not in favour of it for party advantage. I'm in favour of it because it would be fairer and more democratic and lead to better government. It would also as a bonus avoid all the tactical voting shenanigans.
I agree that it may change which party people vote for, perhaps dramatically. But's that OK. That's good. It would be a more honest vote.
I would prefer constituencies kept the same size and just the single MP but chosen by AV.
AV avoids tactical voting which is good. But if you support a particular party, you have to vote for whoever that party puts up. There is no competition between contenders from the same party. It gives the parties too much power over voter choice, in my opinion.
You don't think they could exercise exactly the same control over 3 or 4 candidates as they do over 1? They would still be choosing who those candidates are no matter how many of them you have to choose from.
But each elector would have only one vote. So the candidates from each party group are also competing against one another.
Imagine you had a constituency where the Conservative candidates were Rory Stewart, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Dominic Cummings and Suella Braverman. You have to rank them. Which one would get your vote first?
There is always the risk that a voter, appalled by the attitude and competence of a Conservative candidate, might prefer to vote for a Socialist or Lib Dem candidate ahead o fthe appalling Conservative. So The Party would need to have a good range of candidates to stop its voters rushing off into the arms of Farage,or whatever.
Rigid party control wth identikit candidates leads only to a loss of support.
Good innit?
But that wasn't my point. It was Barnesian who is arguing for STV with multiple MPs and using the reason that it prevents parties deciding who the candidates are. I was poiting out that they can decide that just as easily with 4 candidates from each party as they can with one so it does not reduce the power of the parties at all.
It reduces the power of the party slightly.
The Conservatives put up four candidates, and you want to vote for a Conservative: well you at least get to choose which one you make top of your list. If Euroscepticism is important to you, you can choose the one who has made the right noises there. Etc. Yes, all four candidates are vetted by the party: but - unlike in the current system - it is not the party who decides exactly which one is elected in a given seat.
NYT blog - Scott Perry, the chairman of the Freedom Caucus that Jordan helped establish, says he won’t support any resolution to empower Patrick McHenry, the speaker pro tem. Perry says he hopes Jordan keeps fighting, adding that the race is simply about “stamina.”
Labour lead down to 12 points with More in Common . Fieldwork 14 to 16 October
Lab 42 Con 30 Lib Dem 12 Reform 7 Green 6 SNP 3
I think events in the Middle East are helping the Cons with attention away from domestic issues .
The combined Con and Reform at 37 would seriously worry Labour . I think a few weeks back I’d have backed Labour for both by-elections . Now I think they’re more likely to take Tamworth than Mid-Beds . The split votes there and drop in national lead might be too much of a climb . In Tamworth the Tory candidate might have harmed his hopes with Fxckgate.
This is a swing of 12% since the general election, and Labour need a 10% swing to win a majority with the old boundaries. I think we're heading for a Lab/LD coalition, (which would hopefully introduce proportional representation).
Such a coalition might want to introduce PR, but they'd probably have to have a referendum on it, and I'm not sure the public would back it, whatever the opinion polls say, since it would mean that Labour and Conservative supporters (usually around 70-75% of the electorate) would have to kiss goodbye to ever having majority governments run by their Party again. Also there's the well known tendency to default to the status quo in anoraky questions as we just saw in the Aussie referendum.
(But of course I've been wrong often before - I didn't think we'd vote to leave the EU until a day or two before the vote).
There wouldn't need to be a referendum if PR were in the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos. It is in the LibDem one. The challenge is getting it into the Labour manifesto - even if it is in very small print on page 46.
What always makes me laugh about those who want to change the constitution, is they think that people will vote exactly the same way if it was changed.
I know lots of people who have voted LD; only a few of them are actual supporters of the party. It is currently a catchall vote for both anti Tory and anti Labour depending upon constituency.
UKIP/REF, meanwhile, would do much better under PR, I suspect....
Yes - UKIP/REF and also the Greens would do much better under PR - and so they should.
I'm not in favour of a list system (too much power to the Parties and no choice for the voter and no local accountability.
I'm in favour of a Single Transferable Vote in constituencies of 4 or 5 members where there is competition between members of the same party and also local accountability.
I'm not in favour of it for party advantage. I'm in favour of it because it would be fairer and more democratic and lead to better government. It would also as a bonus avoid all the tactical voting shenanigans.
I agree that it may change which party people vote for, perhaps dramatically. But's that OK. That's good. It would be a more honest vote.
I would prefer constituencies kept the same size and just the single MP but chosen by AV.
AV avoids tactical voting which is good. But if you support a particular party, you have to vote for whoever that party puts up. There is no competition between contenders from the same party. It gives the parties too much power over voter choice, in my opinion.
You don't think they could exercise exactly the same control over 3 or 4 candidates as they do over 1? They would still be choosing who those candidates are no matter how many of them you have to choose from.
But each elector would have only one vote. So the candidates from each party group are also competing against one another.
Imagine you had a constituency where the Conservative candidates were Rory Stewart, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Dominic Cummings and Suella Braverman. You have to rank them. Which one would get your vote first?
There is always the risk that a voter, appalled by the attitude and competence of a Conservative candidate, might prefer to vote for a Socialist or Lib Dem candidate ahead o fthe appalling Conservative. So The Party would need to have a good range of candidates to stop its voters rushing off into the arms of Farage,or whatever.
Rigid party control wth identikit candidates leads only to a loss of support.
Good innit?
But that wasn't my point. It was Barnesian who is arguing for STV with multiple MPs and using the reason that it prevents parties deciding who the candidates are. I was poiting out that they can decide that just as easily with 4 candidates from each party as they can with one so it does not reduce the power of the parties at all.
It reduces the power of the party slightly.
The Conservatives put up four candidates, and you want to vote for a Conservative: well you at least get to choose which one you make top of your list. If Euroscepticism is important to you, you can choose the one who has made the right noises there. Etc. Yes, all four candidates are vetted by the party: but - unlike in the current system - it is not the party who decides exactly which one is elected in a given seat.
In addition to which, the optimum strategy for each party is to put up a diverse slate - not just in terms of political opinion but also in respect of demographics - in order to capture a wider proportion of the electorate. This not only tends towards a more diverse outcome but offers voters a wider choice. For a party only needs to capture the first preference of a voter, attracted perhaps because of the demographics of a candidate, to effectively steal most of that vote from their opponents.
Labour lead down to 12 points with More in Common . Fieldwork 14 to 16 October
Lab 42 Con 30 Lib Dem 12 Reform 7 Green 6 SNP 3
I think events in the Middle East are helping the Cons with attention away from domestic issues .
The combined Con and Reform at 37 would seriously worry Labour . I think a few weeks back I’d have backed Labour for both by-elections . Now I think they’re more likely to take Tamworth than Mid-Beds . The split votes there and drop in national lead might be too much of a climb . In Tamworth the Tory candidate might have harmed his hopes with Fxckgate.
This is a swing of 12% since the general election, and Labour need a 10% swing to win a majority with the old boundaries. I think we're heading for a Lab/LD coalition, (which would hopefully introduce proportional representation).
Such a coalition might want to introduce PR, but they'd probably have to have a referendum on it, and I'm not sure the public would back it, whatever the opinion polls say, since it would mean that Labour and Conservative supporters (usually around 70-75% of the electorate) would have to kiss goodbye to ever having majority governments run by their Party again. Also there's the well known tendency to default to the status quo in anoraky questions as we just saw in the Aussie referendum.
(But of course I've been wrong often before - I didn't think we'd vote to leave the EU until a day or two before the vote).
There wouldn't need to be a referendum if PR were in the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos. It is in the LibDem one. The challenge is getting it into the Labour manifesto - even if it is in very small print on page 46.
What always makes me laugh about those who want to change the constitution, is they think that people will vote exactly the same way if it was changed.
I know lots of people who have voted LD; only a few of them are actual supporters of the party. It is currently a catchall vote for both anti Tory and anti Labour depending upon constituency.
UKIP/REF, meanwhile, would do much better under PR, I suspect....
Yes - UKIP/REF and also the Greens would do much better under PR - and so they should.
I'm not in favour of a list system (too much power to the Parties and no choice for the voter and no local accountability.
I'm in favour of a Single Transferable Vote in constituencies of 4 or 5 members where there is competition between members of the same party and also local accountability.
I'm not in favour of it for party advantage. I'm in favour of it because it would be fairer and more democratic and lead to better government. It would also as a bonus avoid all the tactical voting shenanigans.
I agree that it may change which party people vote for, perhaps dramatically. But's that OK. That's good. It would be a more honest vote.
I would prefer constituencies kept the same size and just the single MP but chosen by AV.
AV avoids tactical voting which is good. But if you support a particular party, you have to vote for whoever that party puts up. There is no competition between contenders from the same party. It gives the parties too much power over voter choice, in my opinion.
You don't think they could exercise exactly the same control over 3 or 4 candidates as they do over 1? They would still be choosing who those candidates are no matter how many of them you have to choose from.
But each elector would have only one vote. So the candidates from each party group are also competing against one another.
Imagine you had a constituency where the Conservative candidates were Rory Stewart, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Dominic Cummings and Suella Braverman. You have to rank them. Which one would get your vote first?
There is always the risk that a voter, appalled by the attitude and competence of a Conservative candidate, might prefer to vote for a Socialist or Lib Dem candidate ahead o fthe appalling Conservative. So The Party would need to have a good range of candidates to stop its voters rushing off into the arms of Farage,or whatever.
Rigid party control wth identikit candidates leads only to a loss of support.
Good innit?
But that wasn't my point. It was Barnesian who is arguing for STV with multiple MPs and using the reason that it prevents parties deciding who the candidates are. I was poiting out that they can decide that just as easily with 4 candidates from each party as they can with one so it does not reduce the power of the parties at all.
The power would switch to the electors to choose the candidate they want, with 4 or 5 from each party there would be a range to choose from.
Labour lead down to 12 points with More in Common . Fieldwork 14 to 16 October
Lab 42 Con 30 Lib Dem 12 Reform 7 Green 6 SNP 3
I think events in the Middle East are helping the Cons with attention away from domestic issues .
The combined Con and Reform at 37 would seriously worry Labour . I think a few weeks back I’d have backed Labour for both by-elections . Now I think they’re more likely to take Tamworth than Mid-Beds . The split votes there and drop in national lead might be too much of a climb . In Tamworth the Tory candidate might have harmed his hopes with Fxckgate.
This is a swing of 12% since the general election, and Labour need a 10% swing to win a majority with the old boundaries. I think we're heading for a Lab/LD coalition, (which would hopefully introduce proportional representation).
Such a coalition might want to introduce PR, but they'd probably have to have a referendum on it, and I'm not sure the public would back it, whatever the opinion polls say, since it would mean that Labour and Conservative supporters (usually around 70-75% of the electorate) would have to kiss goodbye to ever having majority governments run by their Party again. Also there's the well known tendency to default to the status quo in anoraky questions as we just saw in the Aussie referendum.
(But of course I've been wrong often before - I didn't think we'd vote to leave the EU until a day or two before the vote).
There wouldn't need to be a referendum if PR were in the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos. It is in the LibDem one. The challenge is getting it into the Labour manifesto - even if it is in very small print on page 46.
What always makes me laugh about those who want to change the constitution, is they think that people will vote exactly the same way if it was changed.
I know lots of people who have voted LD; only a few of them are actual supporters of the party. It is currently a catchall vote for both anti Tory and anti Labour depending upon constituency.
UKIP/REF, meanwhile, would do much better under PR, I suspect....
Yes - UKIP/REF and also the Greens would do much better under PR - and so they should.
I'm not in favour of a list system (too much power to the Parties and no choice for the voter and no local accountability.
I'm in favour of a Single Transferable Vote in constituencies of 4 or 5 members where there is competition between members of the same party and also local accountability.
I'm not in favour of it for party advantage. I'm in favour of it because it would be fairer and more democratic and lead to better government. It would also as a bonus avoid all the tactical voting shenanigans.
I agree that it may change which party people vote for, perhaps dramatically. But's that OK. That's good. It would be a more honest vote.
I would prefer constituencies kept the same size and just the single MP but chosen by AV.
AV avoids tactical voting which is good. But if you support a particular party, you have to vote for whoever that party puts up. There is no competition between contenders from the same party. It gives the parties too much power over voter choice, in my opinion.
You don't think they could exercise exactly the same control over 3 or 4 candidates as they do over 1? They would still be choosing who those candidates are no matter how many of them you have to choose from.
But each elector would have only one vote. So the candidates from each party group are also competing against one another.
Imagine you had a constituency where the Conservative candidates were Rory Stewart, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Dominic Cummings and Suella Braverman. You have to rank them. Which one would get your vote first?
There is always the risk that a voter, appalled by the attitude and competence of a Conservative candidate, might prefer to vote for a Socialist or Lib Dem candidate ahead o fthe appalling Conservative. So The Party would need to have a good range of candidates to stop its voters rushing off into the arms of Farage,or whatever.
Rigid party control wth identikit candidates leads only to a loss of support.
Good innit?
But that wasn't my point. It was Barnesian who is arguing for STV with multiple MPs and using the reason that it prevents parties deciding who the candidates are. I was poiting out that they can decide that just as easily with 4 candidates from each party as they can with one so it does not reduce the power of the parties at all.
It reduces the power of the party slightly.
The Conservatives put up four candidates, and you want to vote for a Conservative: well you at least get to choose which one you make top of your list. If Euroscepticism is important to you, you can choose the one who has made the right noises there. Etc. Yes, all four candidates are vetted by the party: but - unlike in the current system - it is not the party who decides exactly which one is elected in a given seat.
But as has already been pointed out, what actually usually happens under STV is the Conservatives put up the same number of candidates as there are seats available. Not least because they don't want to risk diluting their vote. So you still don't get much more of a choice than under AV as long as you want to vote Conservative.
Whilst the big downside is you weaken or lose the constituency link.
"(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges The reality is the BBC can no longer be viewed as a credible, impartial source on the Gaza conflict. It reported Hamas claims uncritically. Forget the handbags over “terrorists”. That is a terrible place for the organisation to be. There needs to be a serious investigation. 8:48 AM · Oct 18, 2023"
This is a colossal exaggeration about an imperfect BBC which, WRT news and current affairs is, on the whole a giant force for good in the world.
It is possible to agree with many of the criticisms and also think this is true.
I agree with that. Despite its shortcomings, and occasional cock-ups, I retain more faith in the BBC seeking to provide objectivity than either, say, Hamas or the IDF, both of whom deal mainly in propaganda.
That's a pretty low bar!
But I do think outlets at least attempting to maintain some objectivity is preferable to the solution of some, which is to just have unapologetically unobjective outlets, even if the former will not always get it right.
"(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges The reality is the BBC can no longer be viewed as a credible, impartial source on the Gaza conflict. It reported Hamas claims uncritically. Forget the handbags over “terrorists”. That is a terrible place for the organisation to be. There needs to be a serious investigation. 8:48 AM · Oct 18, 2023"
If Starmer is reading this (which I bloody well hope he is not), I would say not to waste time and effort on major constitutional reforms. The temptation will be to be radical and partisan, but that will either be rushed and come with major unforeseen consequences, or suck in resources and take up a whole term when political capital could be spent on other things. Save it for a second term.
In the short term, after a reasonable influx to as per convention make the Chamber closer to HoC proportions, implement the following simplistic measures to set the scene:
Set an an upper limit, with no new Lords created if it is reached (argument over perfect size can await full reform eg whether to elect etc);
Anyone who does not attend with a certain frequency in a year (say 25% of votes for example) loses their seat in the House (but keeps their title) unless the House has approved an absence, just like local government;
No MPs or someone who worked for an MP (or Parliament) may be appointed until 8 years or 3 parliamentary terms has passed from when they left the House or sought alternative employment, whichever is the lesser;
No one who donates more than £1000 (or whose organisation has donated more than £10000) to a political party may be made a Peer until 6 years or 2 parliamentary terms has passed, whichever is longer;
Ban reisignation honours lists;
A maximum of 30 years may be served in the Lords;
I'm still workshopping these, which is why they change a bit from time to time when I bring it up.
Comments
When STV was first invented by Thomas Hare in 1857 practical considerations on time to work out the voting result - size of constituency were real issues. Nowadays computers can work out the result in seconds once the data is input, the internet can be used to put the raw data online so the working out can be easily checked, and telecoms and transport make the size of a single constituency not a problem. I look at Ireland and I am generally impressed at the quality of their politicians (ran rings round ours at brexit) and the satisfaction of voters with the system. It would be a massive change for the better.
Views from your warren re: the by elections?
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/10/16/b8bd3/1
For me, promising unequivocal support was ridiculous.
Does Cole know that joke? Almost certainly.
(For those unfamiliar with the junior senator's record: https://www.usatoday.com/story/onpolitics/2013/07/11/rand-paul-aide-secession-confederate-views/2509391/ )
SO Coach Jockstrap ain't getting elected Speaker this round . . . unless there are vote switches before roll call concludes, which IMHO ain't likely.
I'm not in favour of a list system (to much power to the Parties and no choice for the voter and no local accounatablity.
I'm in favour of a Single Transferable Vote in constituencies of 4 or 5 members where there is competition between members of the same party and also local accountability.
I'm not in favour of it for party advantage. I'm in favour of it because it would be fairer and more democratic and lead to better government. It would also as a bonus avoid all the tactical voting shenanigans.
I agree that it may change which party people vote for That's a fair point. Constituencies of 4 or 5 would work in conurbations but not in rural constituencies. In extremis, in parts of Scotland, there would need to be single member constituencies i.e. AV.
Incidentally Ireland is 27,000 square miles and 160 seats in the Dail, -one seat per 170 square miles on average.
England is 50,000 square miles with 533 seats one seat per 100 square miles on average.
So Ireland on average has larger constituencies. And STV works very well there.
It is possible to agree with many of the criticisms and also think this is true.
LDs are currently overachieving their actual base of support.
I reckon we'd have some very, very tight coalitions with small majorities.
I'm not in favour of a list system (to much power to the Parties and no choice for the voter and no local accounatablity.
I'm in favour of a Single Transferable Vote in constituencies of 4 or 5 members where there is competition between members of the same party and also local accountability.
I'm not in favour of it for party advantage. I'm in favour of it because it would be fairer and more democratic and lead to better government. It would also as a bonus avoid all the tactical voting shenanigans.
I agree that it may change which party people vote for Yes but then the voter can put them in preference order.
Taking statements from world leaders condemning the Gaza Hospital strike / mis-strike, and applying them to "the Israeli strike o the hospital in Gaza", when the statements do not identify a cause.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p47rtxtIPOE
Increase the number of MPs to 900 (average 75,000, can still get them in Westminster Hall)
Option 2
Increase the number of MPs to 2,267. Rationale is as follows
1851
- UK popn in 1851 = 27368800
- Halve that because only men had the vote
- UK Potential voter popn in 1851 = 13,684,400
- UK number of MPs in 1852 = 654 seats
- Voter/seat ratio = 20,924. Call it 30,000
2023- UK popn in 2023 = 68million (probably)
- Ideal number of seats = 68million/30,000 = 2,267.
So we should have 2,267 MPs, each holding an average of 30,000 people.Representation goes up, party loyalty goes down, MP workload goes down
The character of smaller parties is that they compete in various forms of left and right populist sloganeering beyond rational implementation. As the populist right in Italy is discovering just now.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4262626-biden-warns-israel-mistakes-after-9-11/
..“Since this terrorist attack took place, we’ve seen it described as Israel’s 9/11. But for a nation the size of Israel, it was like 15 9/11s,” Biden said. “The scale may be different, but I’m sure those horrors have tapped into some kind of primal feeling in Israel just like it did in the United States. Shock, pain, rage. An all-consuming rage.”
“You can’t look at what has happened here … and not scream out for justice,” Biden continued. “Justice must be done. But I caution this: While you feel that rage, don’t be consumed by it. After 9/11 we were enraged in the United States. While we sought justice and got justice, we also made mistakes.”..
The description of what happened, and the scene in the pictures that have been published do not match in anyway.
In the original report, a direct hit destroyed a hospital full of people in a huge explosion.
In the pictures, that are claimed to be of the scene, an explosion in a car park destroyed some cars, while leaving trees and buildings intact.
Note that JJ himself has said he supports giving McHenry enough authority so House can resume semi-normal operations. Which means I think he will keep on campaigning, though perhaps in a less robust (read brownshirt) manner.
NYT live blog - Doug LaMalfa of California is Jordan’s first pick-up. He’s a big McCarthy ally, but previously announced he’d back Jordan on this ballot.
SSI - As he'd previously announced he was gonna do; he was the ONLY House GOPer to make such a pledge.
Despite its shortcomings, and occasional cock-ups, I retain more faith in the BBC seeking to provide objectivity than either, say, Hamas or the IDF, both of whom deal mainly in propaganda.
500 is imo credible. So is 200. It was more like a bomb hitting a crowded open air market than an air raid shelter. We'll get accurate reports, I think, on this one. Quite possibly there are EXPAT staff from the UK or the USA working there.
This from the BBC:
"Canon Richard Sewell, the dean of St George's College in Jerusalem, told the BBC that about 1,000 displaced people were sheltering in the courtyard when it was hit, and about 600 patients and staff were inside the building."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67144061
SSI - now 18 votes from GOPers NOT for JJ.
Including one for John Boehner! Poetic justice.
National Infrastructure Commission says public transport, home heating and water networks all in need of renewal
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/oct/18/uk-infrastructure-needs-much-more-investment-say-government-advisers
The chair of the commission was particularly critical of the government rushing to sell off land acquired for HS2.
ADDENDUM - make that 21
Anyone reporting from Gaza is in a dangerous cage. It is remarkable that the BBC have an office there at all. Most don't. SFAICS the BBC have said nothing about this (for obvious reasons) but it is apparent that the BBC guy there is self censoring for reasons which will be connected to staying alive. I hear everything he says in that light.
They are still quoting Hamas as saying this was done by the Israelis. They are not commenting on the recorded message that the Israelis produced this morning.
The consequences of the BBC reporting things in this highly partial way can be profound. Who can doubt it contributed to the decision of Arab leaders not to meet Biden?
I fully appreciate that this is a difficult situation. I accept getting clear evidence is difficult. But the BBC needs to be much more careful about "reporting" such dangerously inflammatory material without any form of verification, even if it puts them a few minutes behind some of the more adventurous sites. This has not been their finest hour.
Imagine you had a constituency where the Conservative candidates were Rory Stewart, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Dominic Cummings and Suella Braverman. You have to rank them. Which one would get your vote first?
There is always the risk that a voter, appalled by the attitude and competence of a Conservative candidate, might prefer to vote for a Socialist or Lib Dem candidate ahead o fthe appalling Conservative. So The Party would need to have a good range of candidates to stop its voters rushing off into the arms of Farage,or whatever.
Rigid party control wth identikit candidates leads only to a loss of support.
Good innit?
@KonstantinKisin
The people who spent the last many years demanding censorship of "misinformation" and "disinformation" have spent 24 hours spreading horrific and damaging unverified allegations pushed by a terrorist organisation as the truth on their gigantic platforms."
https://twitter.com/KonstantinKisin/status/1714638719259746576
The US Congress has 435 members, does it not? For 335 million people.
Devolve more things down to a regional or county level, with appropriate funding, and let the HoC focus on things more strategic than emails from Mrs Flobbadobbadoo about the pothole on Acacia Avenue, Dorking.
We have already seen how relatively long-term Mayors can be compared to Somebody-Save-my-Butt Sunak.
No2AV 68%
Yes2AV 32%
https://twitter.com/sgcjerusalem?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
He started by doing a bit of a Leon/BBC but is being honest about it.
Proposed by Richard Burgon
https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/61430
I'm with you on clearing out the crooks, however - of whom there are far too many.
God only knows what certain media outlets were doing reporting it more or less straight from the off, given there were immediate reasons to go "hang on a minute". It pains one to say it, given usually like to stick up for them when the usual 'bias bullies' shout at it for not reporting things they like, but the BBC in particular have likely done huge damage to themselves not just with initial failings, but completely failing to deal with that initial failure. A tweet which cites Israel, with just an 'according to Hamas' is still up there a day later, despite it being incredibly inflammatory and shared as fact. They really do need to apologise, and explain how they editorially got it so catastrophically wrong in the emphasis of their coverage. It may well have cost more lives. Heads should really roll. Given the misinformation around this conflict, and how easily it can descend into violent rage, the BBC in particular have to be absolutely at the top of their game as they are needed to be a voice of relative trust. They fell hugely short on this story. If you can't verify something, wait, and if it can't wait be very careful how you word things. After all, the organisation has just spent half its time dancing on the head of a pin over whether to call Hamas 'terrorists'. The least it could do would be to have a house style for breaking news that's uncertain, that's very, very neutral until those on the ground are 100% sure of their information and have verified it.
We can't build owt in this country....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-67123644
Jeffries 212
Jordan 119
Scalise 7
McCarthy 5
Zeldin 3
Donalds 1
Emmer 1
Garcia 1
Miller 1
Boehner 1
Granger 1
Westerman 1
= 22 GOPers voting for GOPer not JJ
But the idea that a major problem is there are more than in the lower house I find to be unpersuasive and even a bit weird.
It is certainly true that is not normal. I also do agree there are more than needed for their function and have proposed ideas to reduce the number. But is there some universal rule that an upper house must be less than the lower? What is the correct number for an upper house? What proportion is the proper one?
The question is what we want them to do (if anything) and how many you think you need for that (if any). Then, how do you select that number. That's it.
This House utterly condemns the massacre of Israeli civilians and taking of hostages by Hamas.
As the Justice Secretary has recognised, short sentences are not effective in reducing reoffending.
By David Gauke"
https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2023/10/the-uk-is-starting-to-accept-that-prison-doesnt-work
Coach Jockstrap pinned to the mat yet again.
"Israel’s presentation has a Rear Admiral and the tape saying the malfunctioning missile fired from cemetery next to hospital. That doesn’t match video of the event. …"
"Israel’s info graphic has the firing site 5kms SW of the hospital - it cannot be there and the next door cemetery , can it?"
"Several experts confirm Hamas’ view to @Channel4News that the audio tape of “Hamas” operatives talking about the missile malfunction is a fake . They say the tone, syntax, accent and idiom are absurd."
All from:
https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/1714671298461237673?t=Jkv_wSulfo6MD9BrqjMzlQ&s=19
It really is hard to know what is real and what is fake any more.
Is it the tape or is it the analysis of the tape?
So Jordan again fails to win the Speakership and in fact loses a vote from yesterday
It was depressingly filled with partisan posturing by the Minister, who said nothing about why he had not worked towards increasing Court capacity several years ago - and did not come up (like all his predecessors since 2011) to a solution once and for all to the continuing Indeterminate Sentencing scandal.
Since we are in a Twilight of the Political Pygmies phase, how likely do you think it is that anything will happen?
In the short term, after a reasonable influx to as per convention make the Chamber closer to HoC proportions, implement the following simplistic measures to set the scene:
- Set an an upper limit, with no new Lords created if it is reached (argument over perfect size can await full reform eg whether to elect etc);
- Anyone who does not attend with a certain frequency in a year (say 25% of votes for example) loses their seat in the House (but keeps their title) unless the House has approved an absence, just like local government;
- No MPs or someone who worked for an MP (or Parliament) may be appointed until 8 years or 3 parliamentary terms has passed from when they left the House or sought alternative employment, whichever is the lesser;
- No one who donates more than £1000 (or whose organisation has donated more than £10000) to a political party may be made a Peer until 6 years or 2 parliamentary terms has passed, whichever is longer;
- Ban reisignation honours lists;
- A maximum of 30 years may be served in the Lords;
I'm still workshopping these, which is why they change a bit from time to time when I bring it up.Look at Bukele's popularity rating in El Salavador... Two inconvenient truths: being tough on crime both reduces crime, and makes you very very popular...
Probably not, but they might have had a chance.
Unfortunately his brief doesn’t include Minister for Time Machines. Sadly he is probably one of the few MPs who would be able to work towards sensible plans with time however he’s likely going to lose his seat so we will never know.
The trick to stopping offending is not principally the harshness of the sentences for those convicted. It is about catching and convicting the right people. A twenty year sentence for shoplifting is not a deterrent if you don't think it'll ever get to court.
In fact, all 221 Republicans and 212 Democrats currently serving in US House voted = 433.
There are 2 vacancies at present:
> Rhode Island 2nd District, previously Democratic, and likely to be so again after this year's special election
> Utah 3rd District, previously Republican, and ditto.
For the reaction after Mid-Beds I am hoping for 31%, 30%, 29% and 10% the rest - but in which order?
"The four Republicans who voted for Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) on Tuesday but not today — Reps. Vern Buchanan (Fla.), Drew Ferguson (Ga.), Mariannette Miller-Meeks (Iowa) and Pete Stauber (Minn.) — don’t fall into the categories that many of the previous Jordan holdouts do.
None of them are on the House Appropriations Committee or the House Armed Services Committee. Nor are they members of the Problem Solvers Caucus, which is home to many moderate Republicans. And they don’t represent especially competitive districts.
But they have one thing in common: All four voted to certify President Biden as the winner of the 2020 election."
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/10/18/house-speaker-vote/#link-MZY2U7N3ZJF7NBANJ3AENFSCTM
The Conservatives put up four candidates, and you want to vote for a Conservative: well you at least get to choose which one you make top of your list. If Euroscepticism is important to you, you can choose the one who has made the right noises there. Etc. Yes, all four candidates are vetted by the party: but - unlike in the current system - it is not the party who decides exactly which one is elected in a given seat.
SSI - "stamina" as in "strength through joy"?
Chris Rose
@ArchRose90
“Hello BBC, Israel did it. We’ll provide evidence later, trust me bro.”
The BBC are going to have to make a statement, that's already up to 15k likes.
Whilst the big downside is you weaken or lose the constituency link.
But I do think outlets at least attempting to maintain some objectivity is preferable to the solution of some, which is to just have unapologetically unobjective outlets, even if the former will not always get it right.